Most-to-least prompting involves gradually reducing prompts over time, initially starting with the highest level of prompt that allows the individual to respond correctly (Alberto & Troutman, 1995; Billingsley & Romer, 1983; Tekin-Iftar & Kırcaali-Iftar, 2013). For instance, during primary intervention sessions, an instructor may guide the individual's hands directly, progressing to less intrusive prompts like guiding the individual at the wrist in subsequent attempts (Libby et al., 2008).
Most-to-least (MTL) prompting is a method where an instructor starts with the most help and gradually reduces their support as the learner responds. To begin, the instructor sets up a list of prompts, starting with the most supportive one (e.g., guiding the learner's hand) and moving to less direct help (e.g., verbal reminders) until the learner can respond correctly on their own. At first, the instructor gives the most help to make sure the learner gets the right answer. As the learner improves and shows they can respond correctly, the instructor uses less help. If the learner makes a mistake, the instructor returns to a more intrusive prompt and repeats the process. This continues until the learner can respond correctly and independently (Leaf et al., 2016).
To effectively use the Most-to-least prompting (MLP) procedure, follow these steps: (a) identify and clearly define the behaviour you want to teach, (b) choose the stimulus or cue that will prompt the learner to react, (c) decide how many levels of prompts you will use, (d) select the types of prompts to include, (e) arrange these prompts from the most to the least intrusive, (f) set the timing for how long you'll wait for a response, (g) establish the criteria for moving to less intrusive prompts, (h) create a plan to evaluate how well the learner performs with the less intrusive prompts, (i) decide how the learner will be encouraged based on their responses, and (j) choose a method for recording and tracking the learner's progress, making adjustments as needed based on their performance (Tekin-Iftar & Kırcaali-Iftar, 2013; Wolery et al., 1992).
MLP has been successfully applied in teaching various skills, ( e.g., functional skills, academic skills, communication skills, and leisure skills), to individuals with developmental disabilities (Batu et al., 2004; Davenport & Johnston, 2015; Cengher et al., 2016; Cetrez-Iscan et al., 2016; Lerman et al., 2004; Leaf et al., 2016b; Jerome et al., 2007).
Study Overview:
This study focused on using an interrupted chain procedure to teach spontaneous mands (requests) to preschool-aged children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) using a high-tech speech-generating device (SGD). The children were taught to request missing items necessary to complete a play activity using the Proloquo2Go™ application on an iPad®.
Intervention Goals:
Teach the children to use the SGD to request missing items needed to complete a play activity.
Ensure that each child could independently and accurately request the missing item in at least 80% of trials over three consecutive sessions.
Evaluate whether the children could retain the ability to make accurate requests without prompts during maintenance sessions.
Pre-session set-up:
Position the SGD within 5 inches of the child, ensuring accessibility and visibility. Orient the child to the SGD screen, which displayed the target item (missing puzzle piece) and three distractor symbols.
Instructional Procedures:
This procedure involves setting up a play activity with missing items and then using the SGD to prompt the child to request the missing item.
Interrupted Chain Procedure:
Present the play activity with missing items.
Allow the child to complete the activity except for the missing pieces.
Wait for the child to initiate a request for the missing item.
Apply a 5-second time delay to observe if the child would mand independently.
Prompt 1: Natural Cue
Present the play activity with missing items (e.g., an incomplete puzzle).
Observe the child for natural communicative behaviours such as orienting towards the SGD, pointing to the space where the missing piece should be, or reaching for the instructor’s hand.
Initiate a 5-second time delay after the child demonstrates communicative intent, awaiting an independent response for the missing item.
Prompt 2: Full Physical Prompt
If the child did not mand for the missing item or made an error after the 5-second delay, provide a full physical prompt.
Guide the child’s hand to select the correct item on the SGD and record the response as prompted.
Provide access to the missing item and note the accuracy of the response.
Reinforcement:
Provide the missing item immediately if the child independently or accurately requested it.
Deliver positive reinforcement and praise for successful independent requests.
Prompt Fading:
Gradually reduce the level of prompting, starting with fading physical prompts, then gestural prompts and eventually natural cues.
Encourage independent manding by decreasing the amount of support provided over time.
Maintenance:
Conduct maintenance sessions after the completion of the training phase with the same procedures as baseline sessions, without providing prompts for non-responsiveness or incorrect responses.
Continue until the child met mastery criteria of three consecutive sessions at or above 80% accurate and independent responding.
Generalization:
Reinforce the use of the SGD across various contexts and activities to ensure the child generalizes the skill of manding for missing items.
Continue support and reinforcement as needed to promote consistent use of the SGD in different situations.
Alberto, A. A., & Troutman, A. C. (1995). Applied Behavior Analysis for Teachers. Prenctice Hall.
Batu, S., Ergenekon, Y., Erbas, D., & Akmanoglu, N. (2004). Teaching pedestrian skills to individuals with developmental disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13(3), 147-164. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBE.0000037626.13530.96
Billingsley, F. F., & Romer, L. T. (1983). Response prompting and the transfer of stimulus control: Methods, research, and a conceptual framework. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 8(2), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079698300800201
Cengher, M., Shamoun, K., Moss, P., Roll, D., Feliciano, G., & Fienup, D. M. (2016). A comparison of the effects of two prompt-fading strategies on skill acquisition in children with autism spectrum disorders. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-015-0096-6
Cetrez-Iscan, G., Nurcin, E., & Fazlioglu, Y. (2016). Effect of most-to-least prompting procedure on dressing skill of students with autism. Educational Research Review, 11, 1766-1774
Davenport, L. A., & Johnston, S. S. (2015). Using most-to-least prompting and contingent consequences to teach numeracy in ınclusive early childhood classrooms. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 34(4), 250–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121413518824
Jerome, J., Frantino, E. P., & Sturmey, P. (2007). The effects of errorless learning and backward chaining on the acquisition of Internet skills in adults with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(1), 185–189. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2007.41-06
Leaf, J. B., Leaf, J. A., Alcalay, A., Kassardjian, A., Tsuji, K., Dale, S., ... & Leaf, R. (2016). Comparison of most-to-least prompting to flexible prompt fading for children with autism spectrum disorder. Exceptionality, 24(2), 109-122.
Leaf, J. B., Cihon, J. H., Townley-Cochran, D., Miller, K., Leaf, R., McEachin, J., & Taubman, M. (2016b). An evaluation of positional prompts for teaching receptive identification to individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9(4), 349–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-016-0146-8
Lerman, C. D., Vorndran, M. C., Addison, L., & Kuhn, C. S. (2004). Preparing teachers in evidence-based practices for young children with autism. School Psychology Review, 33, 510– 526. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2004.12086265
Lorah, E. R., & Griffen, B. (2023). Establishing a mand repertoire using an interrupted chain procedure with SGD in children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 35(1), 97-110.
Tekin-Iftar, E., & Kırcaali-Iftar, G. (2013). Ozel egitimde yanlissiz ogretim yontemleri [Errorless teaching methods in special education]. Vize Akademik [Vize Academic].
Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Doyle, P. M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate- to-severe disabilities: Use of response prompting strategies. Longman Publishing Group.