Abstract
In my response to Leaf (2011), we agree that more comparative studies on response prompting procedures need to be conducted, and that it is “hard to justify the use of any trial and error procedure”. There appears to be disagreement, however, on several points, including: a) the need to separate the discussion of a procedure's effectiveness and efficiency; b) what constitutes an applied or functional skill; c) that NNP is a trial and error procedure; d) the importance of researchers explicitly reporting multiple measures of efficiency so that readers can independently evaluate the efficiency of the prompting strategies being compared; and e) that error correction procedures are inappropriate during early stages of learning. I briefly address my position regarding each. Source of funding: No source of funding reported.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
