| Title |
A Comparison of Most-to-Least and Least-to-Most Prompting on the Acquisition of Solitary Play Skills
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Analysis in Practice, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/bf03391719 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Myrna E. Libby, Julie S. Weiss, Stacie Bancroft, William H. Ahearn |
| Abstract |
Two studies are presented in which common prompting procedures were evaluated while teaching children with autism to build Lego(®) play structures. In the first study, most-to-least (MTL) and least-to-most (LTM) prompting were compared. All participants learned to build the play structures when the teacher used MTL, which was associated with fewer errors than LTM. Nonetheless, three participants learned more quickly with LTM. This finding suggests that MTL may prevent errors, but it sometimes slows learning. The second study compared LTM to MTL without and with a delay (MTLD). MTLD provided an opportunity for the child to independently initiate responding but still minimized the likelihood of errors. Results showed that acquisition was nearly as rapid when the teacher used MTLD as LTM but it produced fewer errors than LTM. Best practice guidelines for choosing prompting procedures are proposed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 44% |
| Canada | 2 | 22% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 142 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 55 | 39% |
| Researcher | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 9% |
| Unknown | 41 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 44 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 11% |
| Linguistics | 6 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Unknown | 42 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 April 2018.
All research outputs
#4,222,459
of 24,825,035 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Analysis in Practice
#132
of 616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,246
of 321,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Analysis in Practice
#22
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,825,035 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,694 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.