Using a Constant Time Delay Procedure to Teach Support Personnel to Use a Simultaneous Prompting Procedure

Britton, Nicole Scott; Collins, Belva C.; Ault, Melinda Jones; Bausch, Margaret E.

doi:10.1177/1088357615587505

Cited by 16 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The reason the researchers selected this format was to decrease the probability of students learning during baseline condition as well as to decrease the testing fatigue from being asked to perform a task they did not know how to do. This is consistent with other studies (e.g., Britton, Collins, Ault, & Bausch, 2015).…”

Section: Limitations and Suggestions For Future Researchsupporting

confidence: 94%

Using a Simultaneous Prompting Procedure to Embed Core Content When Teaching a Potential Employment Skill

Collins

Terrell

Test

2017

Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, there has been a shift in the curriculum of students with intellectual disability (ID) toward a standardsbased curriculum and instruction in core content standards (Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas, & Sievers, 2011). Legal mandates have specified that all students in special education have access to the general education curriculum and participate in state and district assessment (Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], 2004). These new regulations and emphasis on standards-based reform have led school districts and researchers to examine how to incorporate students with ID in the general education curriculum. In addition to regulations, analyses from the National Longitudinal Transition Survey (NLTS-2) indicate students with ID who received a functional curriculum in secondary school did not have better post-school outcomes than their peers who received instruction in a curriculum focusing on academics (Bouck, 2010). Despite this push to incorporate more academics in the instruction of students with ID, practitioners still have an obligation to teach students skills needed in future environments. These skills may not necessarily be academic in nature (Ayres et al., 2011). There is a body of research that has focused on incorporating both functional and academic skills in the curriculum for students with ID (

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Suggestions For Future Researchsupporting

confidence: 94%

Using a Simultaneous Prompting Procedure to Embed Core Content When Teaching a Potential Employment Skill

Collins

Terrell

Test

2017

Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thirty‐three of the 36 studies reported the number of students with IDD who received intervention from the paraprofessionals. Across those studies, 234 students participated, ranging from 1 (e.g., Britton, Collins, Ault, & Bausch, 2017) to 51 (i.e., Carter et al, 2016). Of these students, the authors reported that 108 had autism, 69 had intellectual disability, 12 had both autism and intellectual disability, 16 had multiple disabilities, and 28 had developmental disabilities that were not specified.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Training paraprofessionals who work with students with intellectual and developmental disabilities: What does the research say?

Brock

Anderson

2020

Psychology in the Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Federal law allows for paraprofessionals to provide instruction to students with developmental disabilities if they are adequately trained and supervised, but how to best provide this training and support remains unclear. In this paper, we update a systematic review of experimental studies that test the efficacy of paraprofessional‐implemented interventions for students with developmental disabilities. We identified 36 studies published 2012–2019. An exciting development is that some researchers are shifting to testing teacher‐implemented training, therefore beginning to address important questions about the feasibility of widespread implementation under real‐world conditions. Based on findings across studies, recommendations for practice include that (a) paraprofessional roles be well‐defined and focused on the implementation of evidence‐based practices; (b) paraprofessional training should feature modeling, an implementation checklist, and performance feedback that is sustained over time; and (c) administrators should ensure that teachers have the time and support that are required for effective paraprofessional training and supervision.

show abstract

“…Instruction continues in this manner (i.e., probe trials followed by training trials) until criterion is met during daily probe trials. In addition to studies on the effectiveness of the simultaneous prompting procedure delivered by special education teachers, studies have shown the effectiveness and reliable implementation of the simultaneous prompting procedure when implemented by others, including peers and paraprofessionals (Britton, Collins, Ault, & Bausch, 2015;Fetko, Collins, Hager, & Spriggs, 2013;Heinrich et al, 2016;Riesen, McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, & Jameson, 2003;Tekin-Iftar, 2003), siblings (Tekin & Kircaali-Iftar, 2002), parents (Batu, 2008(Batu, , 2014Tekin-Iftar, 2008), and child development specialists (Vuran & Olçay Gül, 2012). There appears to be no research, however, investigating the use of the simultaneous prompting procedure by general education teachers to teach students with ASD in inclusive classrooms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Coaching Teachers to Use a Simultaneous Prompting Procedure to Teach Core Content to Students With Autism

Tekin‐Iftar

Collins

Spooner

et al. 2017

Teacher Education and Special Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The researchers in this study used a multiple baseline design across dyads to examine the effects of professional development with coaching to train general education teachers to use a simultaneous prompting procedure when teaching academic core content to students with autism and the effects of the procedure on the students’ outcomes. Three teacher–student dyads participated in the study. Results showed that (a) teachers acquired the ability to use the simultaneous prompting procedure with 100% accuracy, maintained the acquired teaching behaviors over time, and generalized them in teaching new academic content to their students; and (b) students acquired the targeted academic content, maintained it over time, and generalized it across different persons and settings. In addition, the students acquired instructive feedback stimuli added to instruction and maintained these over time as well. Last, both the opinions of the teachers and students about the social validity of the study were positive. Future research is needed to support these findings.

show abstract

Using a Constant Time Delay Procedure to Teach Support Personnel to Use a Simultaneous Prompting Procedure

Cited by 16 publications

References 22 publications

Using a Simultaneous Prompting Procedure to Embed Core Content When Teaching a Potential Employment Skill

Using a Simultaneous Prompting Procedure to Embed Core Content When Teaching a Potential Employment Skill

Training paraprofessionals who work with students with intellectual and developmental disabilities: What does the research say?

Coaching Teachers to Use a Simultaneous Prompting Procedure to Teach Core Content to Students With Autism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About