Further Evaluation of Prompting Tactics for Establishing Intraverbal Responding in Children With Autism

Abstract

We compared prompting tactics to establish intraverbal responding (question answering) in four boys with autism. Based on the results of intraverbal, textual, echoic, and tact pretests, we compared vocal and picture prompts with three participants, and textual, vocal, and picture prompts with one participant. We also evaluated repeated acquisition with different question sets, and included a concurrent-chains arrangement, in which initial link selections determined which prompting procedure occurred in the terminal link. All the prompting procedures were effective in establishing intraverbal responding, but vocal prompts resulted in the fewest trials to criterion for all four participants during the initial prompt comparison. However, the results were less consistent for the second comparison. The concurrent chains arrangement revealed a clear preference for picture prompts for one participant, but the results for the others were inconclusive.

The Role of Increased Exposure to Transfer‐of‐stimulus‐control Procedures on the Acquisition of Intraverbal Behavior

“…These results are consistent with those of Finkel and Williams and Vedora et al, demonstrating the superiority of visual prompts over auditory ones. On the other hand, in a comparison of echoic, tact, and textual prompts, Ingvarsson and Le (2011) found that four children with autism met the performance criterion more quickly with echoic prompts than with tact or textual prompts.…”

“…Although both prompting methods were successful, the participants met the performance criterion more quickly with textual prompts than echoic prompts, again suggesting that textual prompts may be more effective in teaching intraverbal behavior. Ingvarsson and Hollobaugh (2011) compared the efficiency of echoic and tact (picture) prompts for teaching intraverbal responses to three 4‐year‐old boys with autism. Again, both prompts were effective in teaching the target responses, but tact prompts resulted in fewer trials to criterion for all participants.…”

Evaluating the Emergence of Reverse Intraverbals in Children with Autism

“…Results of comparison studies indicate that echoic-to-intraverbal is more efficient than tact-tointraverbal transfer for some learners (Ingvarsson and Le 2011), tact-to-intraverbal is more efficient than echoic-to-intraverbal transfer for other learners (Ingvarsson and Hollobaugh 2011), and that textual-to-intraverbal is more efficient than echoic-tointraverbal for some learners (Finkel and Williams 2001;Vedora et al 2009). The efficiency of each procedure is likely a product of participant learning history (Coon and Miguel 2012).…”

“…Tact-to-intraverbal (Goldsmith et al 2007), echoic-to-intraverbal (Bloh 2008;Ingvarsson and Le 2011), receptive-to-intraverbal (Bloh 2008), and textual-tointraverbal (Finkel and Williams 2001;Vedora et al 2009) procedures for transferring stimulus control have proven effective for establishing intraverbals. Results of comparison studies indicate that echoic-to-intraverbal is more efficient than tact-tointraverbal transfer for some learners (Ingvarsson and Le 2011), tact-to-intraverbal is more efficient than echoic-to-intraverbal transfer for other learners (Ingvarsson and Hollobaugh 2011), and that textual-to-intraverbal is more efficient than echoic-tointraverbal for some learners (Finkel and Williams 2001;Vedora et al 2009).…”

An Analysis of Verbal Stimulus Control in Intraverbal Behavior: Implications for Practice and Applied Research

“…In recent years, several authors have studied intraverbal behavior in the context of education (e.g., Goldsmith, LeBlanc, & Sautter, 2007;Ingvarsson, Cammilleri, & Macias, 2012;Ingvarsson & Hollobaugh, 2010;Ingvarsson & Le, 2011;Ingvarsson, Tiger, Hanley, & Stephenson, 2007;Miguel, Petursdottir, & Carr, 2005;Partington & Bailey, 1993;Pérez-González, Garcıa-Asenjo, Williams, & Carnerero, 2007;Petursdottir, Carr, Lechago, & Almason, 2008;Petursdottir & Haflidadottir, 2009;Shillingsburg, Kelley, Roane, Kisamore, & Brown, 2009). Sundberg and Sundberg (2011) suggested that a common characteristic of the language deficit exhibited by children with autism and other developmental disorders is their failure to acquire a complex intraverbal repertoire.…”