ArticleBehavior analysis in practice2018
A Comparison of Prompt Delays with Trial-and-Error Instruction in Conditional Discrimination Training.
Article in Behavior analysis in practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many prompting procedures exist for teaching skills to individuals with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability; however, direct comparisons between variations of prompt delay are rarely made. Here, we compared three variations of prompt delay (2-s or 5-s constant delay and 5-s progressive delay) alongside trial-and-error instruction. Four learners were taught a conditional discrimination task using a match-to-sample arrangement. Performances were compared using effectiveness and efficiency measures in an adapted alternating treatments design. A procedural modification, in the form of differential reinforcement, was applied to the prompt delay procedure for two of the four participants. With or without this procedural modification, results suggest progressive prompt delay may be effective and the most efficient in reducing learner errors during instruction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.