Simultaneous prompting problems may involve an ineffective or inaccessible controlling prompt, weak observing or component skills, unclear cues, low-value targets, inconsistent reinforcement, too little teaching, contaminated probes, competing stimulus control, health or sensory factors, or excessive burden. Review the actual trials before adding prompts or dose. Another procedure may fit better, and meaningful targets can move to a separately defined plan.
Locate the problem
Check the cue, controlling prompt, response window, response effort, consequence, materials, teaching opportunities, probe timing, prior exposure, staff integrity, access supports, health variables, and what the person communicates about the task.
Separate teaching and probe failures
Errors after the controlling prompt suggest prompt, access, response, or implementation problems. Correct prompted teaching with weak probes suggests that control has not transferred under the tested conditions. These patterns need different repairs.
Use mixed comparative evidence
In a three-child study, no-no prompting was more effective than simultaneous prompting for the assigned two-choice tasks, while participant procedure preferences varied. A time-delay comparison also supports direct within-person measurement rather than assuming one prompt procedure fits every target.
Protect clinical and communication access
The Ethics Code addresses assessment, client involvement, assent when applicable, medical needs, risk, and evaluation. ASHA supports ongoing AAC access. Distress or withdrawal prompts review rather than more forceful delivery.
A practical example
Theo completes 24 teaching trials with 22 correct prompted responses, then scores 1/8 on independent probes. Video review shows the cue card changes size between teaching and probes. The team standardizes materials and reruns a predeclared phase before choosing another method.
Questions families can use
Does the prompt reliably evoke the response? Is the cue consistent? Are probes clean? Can the person access the response? Is the goal meaningful? What evidence supports repair, comparison, direct teaching, or closure?
Sources
- Behavior Analyst Certification Board, BCBA Test Content Outline, 6th edition
- Mengi and colleagues, Simultaneous Prompting Delivered by Telehealth to Teach Young Children with Autism
- Leaf and colleagues, Comparison of Simultaneous Prompting and No-No Prompting in Two-Choice Discrimination Learning with Children with Autism
- Reichow and Wolery, Comparison of Everyday and Every-Fourth-Day Probe Sessions with the Simultaneous Prompting Procedure
- Akmanoglu and colleagues, Comparison of Simultaneous Prompting and Constant Time Delay Procedures in Teaching Children with Autism
- Tekin-Iftar and Olcay-Gul, Increasing Instructional Efficiency When Using Simultaneous Prompting Procedure in Teaching Academic Skills to Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders
- Behavior Analyst Certification Board, Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts
- American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Augmentative and Alternative Communication
Finni resources
