In the field of deafblindness, there is currently a high need for research evaluating instructional strategies. There is a call for evidence evaluating how to teach, including the parameters of systematic instruction for deafblind learners. The current study aimed to add to the recent research targeting instructional methods with children with multiple disabilities, including deafblindness, by replicating the procedures of a recent study that evaluated the effect of system of least prompts (SLP) on the use of tangible symbols by children who are deafblind. A concurrent multiple probe design across three symbols with a fourth symbol presented nonconcurrently was used to evaluate the efficacy of SLP to teach symbol use to a 13-year-old male. The participant met the mastery criterion for the first symbol but did not increase symbol use for the remaining symbols; these results differed from the original study. Results suggest that additional research evaluating the efficacy of SLP for skill acquisition with this population is needed to determine for whom and under which circumstances the instructional strategy is efficacious.
BennettD. L.GastD. L.WoleryM.SchusterJ. (1986). A comparison in teaching manual sign production. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21(2), 117–129.
2.
BergW. K.WackerD. P. (1989). Evaluation of tactile prompts with a student who is deaf, blind, and mentally retarded. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22(1), 93–99.
3.
BeukelmanD. R.MirendaP. (2013). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (4th Ed.). Brookes.
4.
BlohC.JohnsonN.StrohlC.TidmarshN. (2020). Increasing communication for students with visual impairments and developmental disabilities. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 36, 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-019-00121
5.
BruceS. M.NelsonC.PerezA.StutzmanB.BarnhillB. A. (2016). The state of research on communication and literacy in deafblindness. American Annals of the Deaf, 161(4), 424–443. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2016.0035
6.
BrumC. (2023). Communication and literacy development for adolescents with deafblindness: Teacher beliefs, learning outcomes, and instructional strategies. The British Journal of Visual Impairment, 41(3), 489–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/02646196211059748
7.
BrumC.BruceS. M. (2023). Instructional strategies to support shared reading with learners who are deafblind. The British Journal of Visual Impairment, 41(3), 504–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/02646196221077219
GrattanJ.DemchakM. (2024). Using system of least prompts to teach self-help skills to students who are deafblind. Research & Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 49(2), 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969241231204
10.
Grisham-BrownJ.SchusterJ. W.HemmeterM. L.CollinsB. C. (2000). Using an embedding strategy to teach preschoolers with significant disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10(2/3), 139–162.
11.
HellerK. W.WareS. P.AllgoodM. H.CastelleM. D. (1994). Use of dual communication boards with students who are deaf-blind. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 88(4), 368–376.
12.
IvyS. E.HattonD. D.WehbyJ. H. (2018). Using graduated guidance to teach spoon use to students with severe multiple disabilities including visual impairments. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 43(4), 252–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796918808519
13.
LoganK. R.GastD. L. (2001). Conducting preference assessments and reinforcer testing for individuals with profound multiple disabilities: Issues and procedures. Exceptionality, 9(3), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327035EX0903_3
ReppA. C.KarshK. G.LenzM. W. (1990). Discrimination training for persons with developmental disabilities: A comparison of the task demonstration model and the standard prompting hierarchy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1990.23-43
16.
RowlandC. (2004). Communication Matrix . . . especially for parents. Oregon Health & Science University, Design to Learn Projects.
ShepleyC.LaneJ. D.AultM. J. (2019). A review and critical examination of the system of least prompts. Remedial and Special Education, 40(5), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517751213
19.
SnodgrassM. R.StonerJ. B.AngellM. E. (2013). Teaching conceptually referenced core vocabulary for initial augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29(4), 322–333. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2013.848932
20.
StrawbridgeL. A.DrnachM.SissonL. A.van HasseltV. B. (1989). Behavior therapy combined with physical therapy to promote walker use by a child with multiple handicaps. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24(3), 239–247.
21.
SutterC.DemchakM. (2023a). Evaluation of the system of least prompts to teach symbol use to children who are deafblind. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 58(3), 354–371. https://daddcec.com/publications/etadd
22.
SutterC.DemchakM. (2023b). State deafblind technical assistance project staffs’ reported use and perceived skill of implementing the system of least prompts with students who are deafblind. Research, Advocacy & Practice for Complex & Chronic Conditions: Journal for Physical, Health & Multiple Disabilities Services (RAPCC), 41(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.14434/rapcc.v41i1.32886
23.
TaylorJ. C.McKelveyJ. L.SissonL. A. (1993). Community-referenced skill clusters for adolescents with multiple disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3(4), 363–386.
24.
TaylorR. G. (1987). Teaching a severely handicapped deaf-blind young woman to prepare breakfast foods. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 81(2), 67–69.
25.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2022). What Works Clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook, version 5.0. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE). https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks
