An evaluation of prompting procedures in error correction for children with autism

Abstract

Error correction is a common instructional strategy for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). As prompts are ubiquitous in error correction, we compared the effects of error correction with two prompting procedures (i.e., echoic and picture prompts) for four children with ASD. We used an adapted alternating treatments design embedded in a multiple baseline across participants design. Two comparisons were included to assess whether the relative effects of the arrangements would correspond and replicate within each participant. The results showed that error correction with picture prompt seemed to have produced faster mastery across the two comparisons. Our findings suggest that the various prompting procedure may result in differentiated error-correction effects. Practitioners may consider assessing the relative effects of error-correction procedures during treatment selection.

Applied hybrid single-case experiments published between 2016 and 2020: A systematic review

“…However, the results of the present systematic review indicate that the term is not known by applied researchers. While many different terms were found, the single most popular term was “embedded.” Examples of the use of this term are “multiple-baseline design with an embedded ABAB condition sequence” (Radley et al, 2016), “reversal design with an embedded multielement design” (Deshais et al, 2019), and “adapted alternating treatments design embedded in a multiple baseline across participants design” (Yuan and Zhu, 2020). Some examples of terms coded in the category “other” are “nested,” “and,” and “with.” The results further indicate that the terms “combined” and “combination,” while common in SCED methodology literature, were also rather uncommon.…”

“…While many different terms were found, the single most popular term was "embedded." Examples of the use of this term are "multiple-baseline design with an embedded ABAB condition sequence" (Radley et al, 2016), "reversal design with an embedded multielement design" (Deshais et al, 2019), and "adapted alternating treatments design embedded in a multiple baseline across participants design" (Yuan and Zhu, 2020). Some examples of terms coded in the category "other" are "nested," "and," and "with."…”

Interactive Model of Executive Functions to Understand Error Correction

“…In the clinical context, it provides greater clarity concerning the subcomponents existing before the correction of an error. This opens the way for neuropsychological treatment processes, whereby actions focus on stimulating the described executive functions within the rehabilitation process for those with frontal damage who have difficulties at this level [56][57][58]. From the theoretical perspective, this study presents a significant contribution, given that the body of research on executive functions is still developing in terms of its theoretical models [3].…”

What Predicts Within-Participant Replication of Relative Efficiency in Single-Case Comparisons? A Logistic Regression Analysis

“…Although single-case comparative studies often aim to provide instructional recommendations for learners beyond their participants, the conclusions are likely still limited to those who share a similar combination of characteristics, target behaviors, settings, and resources as the participants in the studies (Johnston, 1988; Shabani & Lam, 2013). Thus, similar to the use of brief experimental analysis, some researchers have suggested conducting one comparison as an assessment to inform intervention selection for individual learners (e.g., Carroll et al, 2018; Kodak & Halbur, 2021; McGhan & Lerman, 2013; Yuan & Zhu, 2020). A special educator can first compare the effects of different interventions as an assessment and consider using the more efficient procedure revealed in this comparison for the same learner in the future.…”