The system of least prompts response prompting procedure has a rich history in special education research and practice. Recently, two independent systematic reviews were conducted to determine if the system of least prompts met criteria to be classified as an evidence-based practice. Both reviews used single-case design standards developed by What Works Clearinghouse to evaluate the rigor and effects of studies; however, findings and implications varied significantly across reviews. We examined the data supporting each review and discuss how two reviews on the same topic area using the same standards for evaluating studies could arrive at different conclusions. Results indicate that varying search parameters, visual analysis protocols, and the flexibility allotted by the design standards may have contributed to differences. We discuss the importance of multiple literature reviews on the same topic area with regard to replication research in special education. In addition, we highlight the necessity of open data in such reviews. Finally, we recommend how practitioners and researchers should collectively interpret the differing findings and conclusions from the reviews examining the system of least prompts.
AlbertoP. A.TroutmanA. C. (2013). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (6th ed.). Prentice Hall.
2.
AllgoodM.HellerK. W.EasterbrooksS. R.FredrickL. D. (2009). Use of picture dictionaries to promote functional communication in students with deafness and intellectual disabilities. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 31(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740108327078
3.
AultM. J.GriffenA. K. (2013). Teaching with the system of least prompts: An easy method for monitoring progress. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(3), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991304500305
4.
AultM. J.WoleryM.DoyleP. M.GastD. L. (1989). Review of comparative studies in the instruction of students with moderate and severe handicaps. Exceptional Children, 55(4), 346–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298905500410
5.
BartonE. E.FettigA. (2013). Parent-implemented interventions for young children with disabilities: A review of fidelity features. Journal of Early Intervention, 35(2), 194–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815113504625
6.
BartonE. E.MeadanH.FettigA. (2019). Comparison of visual analysis, non-overlap methods, and effect sizes in the evaluation of parent implemented functional assessment based interventions. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 85(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.11.001
7.
BrowderD.GibbsS.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.CourtadeG. R.MrazM.FlowersC. (2009). Literacy for students with severe developmental disabilities: What should we teach and what should we hope to achieve?Remedial and Special Education, 30(5), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508315054
8.
BrowderD. M.LeeA.MimsP. (2011). Using shared stories and individual response modes to promote comprehension and engagement in literacy for students with multiple, severe disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46(3), 339–351.
9.
CihakD. F.AlbertoP. A.KesslerK. B.TaberT. A. (2004). An investigation of instructional scheduling arrangements for community-based instruction. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 25(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2003.04.006
10.
CihakD. F.GrimJ. (2008). Teaching students with autism spectrum disorder and moderate intellectual disabilities to use counting-on strategies to enhance independent purchasing skills. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2(4), 716–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2008.02.006
11.
CollinsB. C. (2012). Systematic instruction for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Brookes Publishing.
12.
CollinsB. C.BransonT. A.HallM.RankinS. W. (2001). Teaching secondary students with moderate disabilities in an inclusive academic classroom setting. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 13(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026557316417
13.
ColyerS. P.CollinsB. C. (1996). Using natural cues within prompt levels to teach the next dollar strategy to students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 30(3), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699603000305
14.
CookB. G. (2014). A call for examining replication and bias in special education research. Remedial and Special Education, 35(4), 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514528995
15.
CookB. G.LloydJ. W.MellorD.NosekB. A.TherrienW. J. (2018). Promoting open science to increase the trustworthiness of evidence in special education. Exceptional Children, 85(1), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918793138
DoyleP. M.GastD. L.WoleryM.AultM. J.MeyerS. (1992). Teaching discrete skills to students with moderate mental retardation in small-group instructional arrangements. Exceptionality, 3(4), 233–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362839209524817
18.
DoyleP. M.WoleryM.AultM. J.GastD. L. (1988). System of least prompts: A literature review of procedural parameters. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13(1), 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079698801300104
19.
EnnisR. P.LosinskiM. (2019). Corrigenda to “interventions to improve fraction skills for students with disabilities: A meta-analysis” by Robin Parks Ennis and Mickey Losinski. Exceptional Children, 85(3), 387–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919840996
20.
FisherW. W.KodakT.MooreJ. W. (2007). Embedding an identity-matching task within a prompting hierarchy to facilitate acquisition of conditional discriminations in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(3), 489–499. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2007.40-489
21.
FisherW. W.PiazzaC. C.RoaneH. S. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of applied behavior analysis. Guilford Press.
22.
GøtzscheP. C.HróbjartssonA.MarićK.TendalB. (2007). Data extraction errors in meta-analyses that use standardized mean differences. Journal of the American Medical Association, 298(4), 430–437.
23.
HeckamanK. A.AlberS.HooperS.HewardW. L. (1998). A comparison of least-to-most prompts and progressive time delay on the disruptive behavior of students with autism. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8(2), 171–201. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022883523915
24.
HongE. R.GanzJ. B.MasonR.MorinK.DavisJ. L.NinciJ.. . . GillilandW. D. (2016). The effects of video modeling in teaching functional living skills to persons with ASD: A meta-analysis of single-case studies. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 57(1), 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.07.001
HudsonM. E.BrowderD. M. (2014). Improving listening comprehension responses for students with moderate intellectual disability during literacy class. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(1), 11–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796914534634
27.
HudsonM. E.BrowderD. M.JimenezB. A. (2014). Effects of a peer-delivered system of least prompts intervention and adapted science read-alouds on listening comprehension for participants with moderate intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49(1), 60–77.
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. What Works Clearinghouse. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd.pdf
30.
LakensD.HilgardJ.StaaksJ. (2016). On the reproducibility of meta-analyses: Six practical recommendations. BMC Psychology, 4(1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-016-0126-3
31.
LaneJ. D.LedfordJ. R. (2016). A review of interventions designed to increase sharing behaviors in children with social delays or deficits. Journal of Behavioral Education, 25(1), 69–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-015-9235-y
32.
LedfordJ. R.BartonE. E.SeveriniK. E.ZimmermanK. N.PokorskiE. A. (2019). Visual display of graphic data in single case design studies: Systematic review and expert preference analysis. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 54(4), 315–327.
33.
LedfordJ. R.GastD. L. (2018). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences. Routledge.
34.
LedfordJ. R.LaneJ. D.ElamK. L.WoleryM. (2012). Using response-prompting procedures during small-group direct instruction: Outcomes and procedural variations. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 117(5), 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-117.5.413
35.
ManleyK.CollinsB. C.StenhoffD. M.KleinertH. (2008). Using a system of least prompts procedure to teach telephone skills to elementary students with cognitive disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17(3), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-008-9065-2
36.
MimsP. J. (2009). The effects of the system of least prompts on teaching comprehension skills during a shared story to students with significant intellectual disabilities. The University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
37.
MimsP. J.BrowderD. M.BakerJ. N.LeeA.SpoonerF. (2009). Increasing comprehension of students with significant intellectual disabilities and visual impairments during shared stories. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44(3), 409–420.
38.
MimsP. J.HudsonM. E.BrowderD. M. (2012). Using read-alouds of grade-level biographies and systematic prompting to promote comprehension for students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 27(2), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357612446859
39.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425. 2002.
40.
O’KeeffeB. V.SlocumT. A.BurlingameC.SnyderK.BundockK. (2012). Comparing results of systematic reviews: Parallel reviews of research on repeated reading. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(2), 333–366.
41.
ReichowB. (2012). Overview of meta-analyses on early intensive behavioral intervention for young children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(4), 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-011-1218-9
42.
ShepleyC.Grisham-BrownJ.LaneJ. D. (2020). Multi-tiered systems of support for preschool-aged children: A review and meta-analysis of single-case research. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121419899
43.
ShepleyC.LaneJ. D.AultM. J. (2018). A review and critical examination of the system of least prompts. https://osf.io/rpf4a/
44.
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
45.
SkiboH.MimsP.SpoonerF. (2011). Teaching number identification to students with severe disabilities using response cards. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46(1), 124–133.
46.
SmithK. A.AyresK. M.MechlingL. C.AlexanderJ. L.MatarasT. K.ShepleyS. B. (2015). Evaluating the effects of a video prompt in a system of least prompts procedure. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 38(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143413511981
47.
SmithR. L.CollinsB. C.SchusterJ. W.KleinertH. (1999). Teaching table cleaning skills to secondary students with moderate/severe disabilities: Facilitating observational learning during instructional downtime. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34(3), 342–353.
48.
TaberT. A.AlbertoP. A.HughesM.SeltzerA. (2002). A strategy for students with moderate disabilities when lost in the community. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 27(2), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.27.2.141
49.
TaberT. A.AlbertoP. A.SeltzerA.HughesM. (2003). Obtaining assistance when lost in the community using cell phones. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28(3), 105–116.
50.
Taber-DoughtyT. (2005). Considering student choice when selecting instructional strategies: A comparison of three prompting systems. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26(5), 411–432. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.28.3.105
51.
TaylorP.CollinsB. C.SchusterJ. W.KleinertH. (2002). Teaching laundry skills to high school students with disabilities: Generalization of targeted skills and nontargeted information. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37(2), 172–183.
52.
TestD. W.GrossiT.KeulP. (1988). A functional analysis of the acquisition and maintenance of janitorial skills in a competitive work setting. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079698801300101
53.
TestD. W.SpoonerF.KeulP. K.GrossiT. (1990). Teaching adolescents with severe disabilities to use the public telephone. Behavior Modification, 14(2), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455900142003
54.
TraversJ. C.CookB. G.TherrienW. J.CoyneM. D. (2016). Replication research and special education. Remedial and Special Education, 37(4), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516648462
55.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2014a). Questions and answers from demystifying the what works clearinghouse: A Webinar for developers and researchers. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Document/246
WoleryM. (2013). A commentary: Single-case design technical document of the What Works Clearinghouse. Remedial and Special Education, 34(1), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512468038
62.
WoleryM.AultM. J.DoyleP. M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities: Use of response prompting strategies. Longman.
63.
WoleryM.AultM. J.DoyleP. M.GastD. L. (1986). Comparison of instructional strategies: A literature review (U.S. Department of Education, Grant No. G008530197). Department of Special Education, University of Kentucky.
64.
WoleryM.HemmeterM. L. (2011). Classroom instruction: Background, assumptions, and challenges. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(4), 371–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815111429119
65.
WolfeK.BartonE. E.MeadanH. (2019). Systematic protocols for the visual analysis of single-case research data. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12(2), 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-019-00336-7
66.
WuP. F.WheatonJ. E.Cannella-MaloneH. I. (2016). Effects of video prompting and activity schedules on the acquisition of independent living skills of students who are deaf and have developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 51(4), 366–378.
ZimmermanK. N.LedfordJ. R.SeveriniK. E.PustejovskyJ. E.BartonE. E.LloydB. P. (2018). Single-case synthesis tools I: Comparing tools to evaluate SCD quality and rigor. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 79(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.02.003
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
