An evaluation of parent preference for prompting procedures

Abstract

Parent participation in intervention can enhance intervention efficacy and promote generalization of skills across settings. Thus, parents should be trained to implement behavioral interventions. The purpose of the current investigation was to evaluate parent preference for and acceptability of 3 commonly used prompting procedures. We trained parents of children with disabilities to use 3 empirically validated prompting strategies (i.e., least-to-most, most-to-least, and a progressive-prompt delay). Once the parent reached the mastery criteria with each prompting procedure, we evaluated his/her preference for each of the procedures using a concurrent-chains arrangement. We also measured treatment acceptability of all procedures throughout the study. All participants met the mastery criteria for each of the prompting procedures and showed a preference for least-to-most prompting. Results suggest parents' acceptability of procedures prior to training were different than posttraining/post-child practice. In addition, acceptability rating scores obtained at the end of the investigation corresponded to preference of intervention during the concurrent-chains arrangement. The results demonstrate the benefits of objective measures for studying preference for behavioral, skill-acquisition procedures.

Replicating stimulus‐presentation orders in discrimination training

“…Future research should examine the impact of these repertoires and histories on outcomes. If multiple stimulus-presentation orders continue to be efficacious, learners and implementers should be given opportunities to choose their preferred formats (Halbur et al, 2019;Kodak et al, 2016;Ledford et al, 2019).…”

Parent treatment integrity across multiple components of a behavioral intervention

“…This may indicate parent preference for a specific intervention component (i.e., extinction), as there was no evidence of generalization of other strategies. Although some research has explored parent preference for reinforcement‐based strategies (e.g., Gabor et al., 2016) and prompting strategies (e.g., Halbur et al., 2020), future research should systematically explore parent preference for a broader variety of intervention components. Further, the manner in which preference impacts use, as well as barriers to use of other intervention components (e.g., antecedent strategies and skill development), should also be explored.…”

Comparing paired‐stimulus and multiple‐stimulus concurrent‐chains preference assessments: Consistency, correspondence, and efficiency

“…A paired assessment would require a greater minimum number of trials for any assessment in which 14 or more stimuli would be included. An unsystematic review of recent research suggests that concurrent-chains assessments most frequently include three (e.g, Halbur et al, 2020;Slocum & Tiger, 2011;Toussaint et al, 2016) or four (e.g., Fenerty & Tiger, 2010;Gabor et al, 2016;Heal & Hanley, 2007; completed in the minimum number of trials. Thus there may still be an improved efficiency, and certainly predictability, offered by the paired-stimulus format.…”

“…These initial-link stimuli can then be presented in a manner similar to those of more traditional preference assessments, in which an approach response to the initial-link stimulus results in a reinforcer-consumption period (e.g., after selecting the image of playing basketball, the individual could then play basketball for a period of time). This approach has been used to assess individuals' preferences for behavioral interventions (Fulton et al, 2020;Luczynski and Hanley, 2010;Tiger, Hanley, & Heal, 2006) and teaching strategies (Halbur et al, 2020;Heal et al, 2009;Slocum & Tiger, 2011), among other complex events (Tiger, Hanley, & Hernandez, 2006).…”