JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2018, 9999, 1–13 NUMBER 9999 ()

THE EFFECTS OF HIGH-P AND LOW-P INSTRUCTION SIMILARITY

ON COMPLIANCE AMONG YOUNG CHILDREN
JOSHUA L. LIPSCHULTZ, DAVID A. WILDER, HALLIE ERTEL AND AMY ENDERLI
FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

The high-probability (high-p) instructional sequence involves the delivery of a series of high-
probability instructions immediately before delivery of a low-probability or target instruction. It
has been shown to be efficacious for treating noncompliance among children and individuals
with intellectual disabilities. Previous research (Esch & Fryling, 2013) has suggested that match-
ing the topography of the response required to comply with high-p instructions with the topog-
raphy of the response required to comply with the low-p instruction in the sequence may lead
to greater increases in compliance with the low-p instruction. In this study, we compared high-
p instructions that required both similar and dissimilar responses to two topographies of low-p
instructions (motor and vocal) among two young children. Results suggested that the topogra-
phy of the response required by the high-p instructions did not affect levels of compliance with
low-p instructions for either participant. Implications of these findings and directions for future
research are discussed.
Key words: compliance, high-p instructional sequence, noncompliance

The high-probability (high-p) instructional
sequence is an antecedent-based intervention
used to increase compliance with a low proba-
bility (low-p) instruction. It consists of the
delivery of a set of instructions with which the
participant is likely to comply (i.e., high-p
instructions), immediately before the delivery of
an instruction with which the participant is
unlikely to comply (i.e., low-p instructions;
Mace et al., 1988). The sequence has been used
with a wide variety of populations, including
typically developing children and individuals
with a variety of diagnoses (Lee, 2005). Despite
its widespread use, the effectiveness of the high-
p sequence has been mixed (Lipschultz & Wil-
der, 2017), and some studies have shown that
the sequence is ineffective to increase compli-
ance (Rortvedt & Miltenberger, 1994; Wilder,
Zonneveld, Harris, Marcus, & Reagan, 2007).
Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be
addressed to David A. Wilder, Florida Institute of Tech-
nology, School of Behavior Analysis, 150 West University
Blvd., Melbourne, Florida, 32901 (email: dawilder@
fit.edu)
doi: 10.1002/jaba.482
© 2018 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
1
One explanation for the inconsistent findings
involves the topography of the response
required to comply with the instructions deliv-
ered during the sequence. Some research has
suggested that high-p instructions that require a
topographically similar response to the low-p
instruction may increase compliance to the
low-p instruction. For example, Patel
et al. (2007) evaluated the high-p sequence to
increase food acceptance by a 4-year-old boy
who was food selective. The high-p instruction
involved requiring the participant to put an
empty spoon in his own mouth and was topo-
graphically similar to the response required for
the low-p instruction (requiring the participant
to put a spoon with food on it in his own
mouth). The results suggest that the high-p
sequence was effective without escape extinc-
tion, which is often a critical component of
feeding interventions (e.g., Anderson &
McMillan, 2001).
In a follow-up study, Meier, Fryling, and
Wallace (2012) also evaluated the high-p
sequence to increase food selectivity in a child
with autism. The high-p instruction consisted
of the researcher requiring the participant to
2 JOSHUA L. LIPSCHULTZ et al.
take a bite of a preferred food. The low-p
instruction consisted of researchers requiring
the participant to take a bite of a low-
preference food. Thus, as in Patel et al. (2007),
the topography of the response required in the
high-p instructions was identical to that
required in the low-p instructions. The authors
found that the procedure was effective to
increase acceptance of three different foods,
supporting the notion that topographic similar-
ity may be an important factor in the effective-
ness of the sequence. More recently, Ewry and
Fryling (2016) replicated Patel et al. with an
adolescent boy with autism. The results indi-
cated that the high-p instructional sequence
was effective to increase compliance to the low-p
instruction. In addition, the authors were able to
successfully train the participant’s mother to use
the high-p sequence and, at a 7-month follow-
up evaluation, the participant continued to, at
least occasionally, consume the low preference
food item.
Although these results suggest that the high-
p sequence is a promising technology for
feeding and that using topographically similar
high- and low-p responses may improve this
procedure, the effectiveness of this strategy
remains unknown because only one study has
directly compared high-p and low-p response
similarity outside of the context of the assess-
ment and treatment of food selectivity or
refusal. Esch and Fryling (2013) examined two
variations of the high-p sequence. In the first
variation, the high-p instructions consisted
of maintenance tasks (i.e., tasks that were previ-
ously mastered) such as “Sit down.” In the
second variation, the high-p tasks were leisure-
based instructions (e.g., “Turn on the movie”).
Although both variations increased compliance
with the low-p instruction, the leisure instruc-
tions were more efficacious. Two of the three
high-p responses in the leisure sequence
(i.e., manipulating a toy car and pushing the
button to turn on the television) were topo-
graphically similar to the low-p responses in
that they required similar motor movements.
The authors suggested that this similarity may
have been responsible for the enhanced effec-
tiveness of the leisure sequence. However, it
should be noted that the instructions in the
leisure sequence likely resulted in access to pre-
ferred activities (at least historically), whereas it
is unknown if the instructions in the mainte-
nance sequence ever produced reinforcement
(these tasks were unlikely to be inherently rein-
forcing in the same manner as leisure activities).
Thus, it is unclear if topographic similarity of
the responses was the feature of the high-p
instructions most responsible for the enhanced
effectiveness of the leisure sequence.
In sum, data from the studies reviewed
above suggest that the topographic similarity of
the responses required during the high-p
instructions and the low-p instruction may play
a role in the effectiveness of the high-p
sequence. However, given the limited context
(i.e., food selectivity or refusal) in which many
of these data were collected and the alternative
explanation (i.e., that instructions in the leisure
sequence likely resulted in access to preferred
activities) for the findings of the one study con-
ducted outside of this context, additional
research on this topic is warranted. Thus, the
purpose of the current study was to compare
the high-p sequence using instructions which
required topographically similar and dissimilar
responses. We evaluated the effect of the high-
p sequence on typical academic and social
instructions students might encounter in a pre-
school setting.
METHOD
Participants and Setting
Two children, referred by their preschool
teachers for noncompliant behavior, partici-
pated in the study. Alex and Ed were 4 years
old. Alex was typically developing, and had
age-appropriate language skills. Ed had a diag-
nosis of autism, and spoke in three- to four-
 HIGH-P AND LOW-P INSTRUCTION SIMILARTITY
word sentences. Session blocks were conducted
twice a week in a private room in a preschool.
In each session block, 6 to 12 sessions were
conducted. Across all assessments and condi-
tions, a graduate student served as the
experimenter.
Response Definitions and Measurement
We identified the low-p instructions by ask-
ing teachers to report instructions to which par-
ticipants did not typically comply in the
classroom. For the purposes of the experiment,
we chose a motor low-p instruction and a vocal
low-p instruction for each participant. A motor
low-p instruction was defined as any instruc-
tion to which participants did not typically
comply that required manipulation of a physi-
cal item (e.g., handing a toy to a teacher when
asked to do so). A vocal low-p instruction was
defined as any instruction to which participants
did not typically comply that required vocal
verbal behavior (e.g., vocally answering an aca-
demic question). For both Alex and Ed, the
motor low-p instruction was, “Give me the
phone/dinosaur”. The same toy was used
throughout all of the sessions for each partici-
pant; the toy for Alex was a cellular phone on
which a video game was played, and the toy for
Ed was a small green dinosaur. The vocal low-p
instructions were, “What letter is it?” for Alex
and, “What color is it?” for Ed. To be consid-
ered an instance of compliance, participants
had to correctly vocally state what letter or
color the experimenter pointed to when
prompted by the experimenter. When selecting
low-p (and high-p) instructions, we kept vari-
ables known to affect responding (e.g., response
effort, task duration) as similar as possible. We
timed each participant when completing low-p
tasks; duration of task completion was 1 s for
both vocal and motoric tasks for both
participants.
We identified high-p instructions for use in
the high-p instructional phases by providing
3
teachers with a list of 20 common high-p
instructions and then asking them to nominate
six instructions with which each participant was
likely to comply. Based on teachers’ responses,
we selected six potential motor and six poten-
tial vocal high-p instructions for each partici-
pant. Compliance with each instruction was
then examined by presenting each instruction
10 times, in random order, to each participant.
That is, each instruction was examined in a sin-
gle 10-trial session (twelve 10-trial sessions were
conducted; each session included a different
instruction). Instructions with which the partic-
ipant complied within 5 s on at least 80% of
trials were designated as high-p instructions
(data not shown). We selected six motor and
six vocal high-p instructions for each partici-
pant via this method. The motor high-p
instructions for both Alex and Ed were, “Clap
your hands,” “Give me a fist bump,” and,
“Touch your head.” The vocal high-p instruc-
tions for Alex were questions such as, “How
old are you,” “What is your dog’s name,” and,
“What is your teacher’s name.” The vocal high-
p instructions for Ed were questions such as,
“What’s your name,” “What’s your favorite
food,” and, “How old are you.”
We defined compliance with low-p instruc-
tions as completing the task (i.e., handing the
phone or toy to the experimenter) or vocally
stating the answer to the instruction the experi-
menter specified within 10 s. Because the pur-
pose of the experiment was to increase
compliance, it was necessary to ensure that
noncompliance with low-p tasks was not
related to a skill deficit. To assess this, we con-
ducted a single 10-trial session in which pre-
ferred edible items (see preference assessment
below) were delivered contingent upon compli-
ance with the low-p instruction. Results of this
analysis indicated that participants complied
with low-p demands on 80% or more of these
trials.
Compliance with high-p instructions was
defined as completing the task or vocally stating
4 JOSHUA L. LIPSCHULTZ et al.
the answer to the vocal instruction the experi-
menter specified in the instruction within 2 s,
because high-p requests were always presented
in a sequence with only 1-2 s separating each
prompt. During all phases, we scored noncom-
pliance if participants did not meet the defini-
tion of compliance with a low-p instruction.
Each session consisted of three trials. Each trial
consisted of one low-p instruction (baseline
and differential reinforcement phases) or three
high-p instructions and one low-p instruction
(vocal high-p and motor high-p instructional
sequence phases). We calculated the percentage
of compliance for each session by dividing the
number of trials with compliance to the low-p
instruction by the total number of trials per ses-
sion (i.e., three) and converting this quotient to
a percentage. Data on compliance with high-p
instructions were also collected, though they
were not evaluated across phases of study. Both
participants engaged in a high percentage of
compliance with high-p instructions across
phases. Alex complied with high-p instructions
during 96% of presentations; Ed complied with
all high-p instructions.
A second, independent observer collected
data during 100% of sessions for Alex and
Ed. We evaluated agreement by comparing
observer records on a trial-by-trial basis. We
defined an agreement as both observers record-
ing compliance or noncompliance on a given
trial. Overall agreement was calculated by
dividing the number of sessions with agreement
by the total number of sessions and then con-
verting this ratio to a percentage. Overall agree-
ment on compliance and noncompliance (for
both high-p and low-p instructions) was 100%
for Alex and Ed for both instructions.
We collected treatment integrity data on the
delivery of the high-p instructions and correct
edible delivery (when appropriate for compli-
ance with high-p and low-p instructions). We
evaluated integrity by comparing observer
record of the delivery of instructions or edibles
with scheduled delivery on a trial-by-trial basis.
All treatment integrity values for all instructions
across both participants were 100%.
Stimulus Preference Assessment
We first conducted a paired-stimulus prefer-
ence assessment (Fisher et al., 1992) to identify
preferred edibles to be delivered contingent
upon compliance for each participant (data not
shown). The preference assessment identified
Sour Skittles™ as the most preferred edible for
Alex and gummy bears as the most preferred
edible for Ed.
Procedure
The effects of similar and dissimilar low-p
and high-p instruction topographies were evalu-
ated in a reversal design. The order of phases
within the reversal design was counterbalanced
across the two participants. ABACADAD rever-
sal designs were used to evaluate the effects of
the motor high-p instructional sequence and
the vocal high-p instructional sequence to
increase compliance with the motor low-p
instruction for Alex. ABACAC reversal designs
were used to evaluate the effects of the motor
high-p instructional sequence and the vocal
high-p instructional sequence to increase com-
pliance with the motor low-p instruction for
Ed. An ABACAC design was also used to eval-
uate the effects of a motor high-p sequence on
compliance with the vocal low-p instruction for
Alex. An ABACADAD design was used to eval-
uate the effects of a vocal high-p sequence on
compliance with the vocal low-p instruction for
Alex. ABACAC reversal designs were used to
evaluate the effects of a motor high-p sequence
and a vocal high-p sequence on compliance
with the vocal low-p instruction for
Ed. Criteria for moving onto the next phase in
the study was stable responding over at least
three consecutive data points or a contraindi-
cated trend (i.e., decreasing compliance).
During all sessions, the experimenter stood
within 1.5 m of participants. In all phases, the
 HIGH-P AND LOW-P INSTRUCTION SIMILARTITY
experimenter presented the low-p instruction
every 3 min. To orient the participant to the
experimenter and instruction, the experimenter
began each trial by stating the participant’s
name. For the “Give me the phone / dinosaur”
instruction, the participants had access to the
cellular phone or toy dinosaur before instruc-
tions were presented. For all other motor and
vocal instructions, the participant did not have
access to any preferred items or activities before
the instructions were presented. For the “What
letter is this?” and “What color is this?” instruc-
tions, an array of the entire alphabet or an array
of three colors was presented, respectively.
Baseline. During baseline, the experimenter
presented the low-p instruction. Compliance
with the low-p instruction resulted in the
experimenter providing brief praise
(e.g., “Thanks”). Noncompliance resulted in no
programmed consequences.
High-p instructional sequences. Two types of
high-p instructional sequences were presented
to each participant: motor and vocal. During
the motor high-p instructional phases, the
experimenter presented the low-p instruction,
as in baseline. However, immediately before
each low-p instruction presentation, the experi-
menter presented three motor high-p instruc-
tions (described above). Depending on the
phase, the experimenter delivered social praise
or a preferred edible contingent upon compli-
ance with each high-p instruction. If the partic-
ipant did not comply, the sequence was
terminated and the experimenter waited 30 s
before beginning the sequence again (this never
occurred). As in baseline, compliance with the
low-p instruction resulted in the delivery of
brief praise. Noncompliance with the low-p
instruction resulted in no programmed
consequences.
During the vocal high-p instructional phases,
the experimenter presented the low-p instruc-
tion, as in baseline. However, immediately
before each low-p instruction presentation, the
experimenter presented three vocal high-p
5
instructions (described above). Depending on
the phase, the experimenter delivered social
praise or a preferred edible contingent upon
compliance with each high-p instruction. If the
participant did not comply with a high-p
instruction, the sequence was terminated and
the experimenter waited 30 s before beginning
the sequence again (this occurred twice). As in
baseline, compliance with the low-p instruction
resulted in the delivery of brief praise. Non-
compliance with the low-p instruction resulted
in no programmed consequences.
Differential reinforcement of low-p compliance.
During the differential reinforcement phase,
compliance with the low-p instruction resulted
in the delivery of a small piece of the partici-
pant’s highly preferred edible item. Noncom-
pliance resulted in no programmed
consequences. This condition was identical to
baseline, except for the delivery of an edible
contingent upon compliance to the low-p
instruction.
RESULTS
Motor Low-P Instructions
Figure 1 shows percent compliance with the
low-p motor task using a motor high-p (upper
panel) and vocal high-p (lower panel) instruc-
tional sequence for Alex. Alex’s compliance
with the motor low-p instruction when the
high-p instructions required a motoric response
was low across all baseline conditions
(M = 3%), high-p with praise (M = 33%) and
high-p with edible (M = 33%) conditions.
When differential reinforcement was provided
for the low-p motor response, Alex’s compli-
ance increased (M = 60% in first phase and
100% in second phase; see upper panel of
Figure 1). Alex’s compliance with the motor
low-p instruction when the high-p instructions
were vocal was also low across all baseline con-
ditions (M = 3%), high-p with praise
(M = 11%) and high-p with edible (M = 25%)
conditions. When differential reinforcement
6 JOSHUA L. LIPSCHULTZ et al.

Figure 1. Compliance with the motor low-p instruction when the high-p instructions were motoric across baseline,
high-p with praise, high-p with edible, and differential reinforcement (DR) conditions (upper panel) for Alex; compli-
ance with the motor low-p instruction when the high-p instructions were vocal across baseline, high-p with praise, high-
p with edible, and differential reinforcement (DR) conditions for Alex (lower panel).
 HIGH-P AND LOW-P INSTRUCTION SIMILARTITY
was arranged for the target response, compli-
ance increased (M = 89%; see lower panel of
Figure 1).
Figure 2 shows percent compliance with the
low-p motor task using a motor high-p (upper
panel) and vocal high-p (lower panel) for
Ed. Ed’s compliance with the motor low-p
instruction when the high-p instructions were
motoric was low across all baseline conditions
(M = 0%) and high-p with praise (M = 22%)
conditions. The high-p with edible condition
produced an increase in compliance
(M = 100%; see upper panel of Figure 2). Ed’s
compliance with the motor low-p instruction
when the high-p instructions were vocal was
also low in baseline (M = 11%) and high-p
with praise (M = 33%) conditions. His compli-
ance in the high-p with edible condition
increased (M = 94%; see lower panel of
Figure 2).
Vocal Low-P Instructions
Figure 3 shows percent compliance with the
low-p vocal task using a motor high-p (upper
panel) and vocal high-p (lower panel) for Alex.
Alex’s compliance with the vocal low-p instruc-
tion when the high-p instructions required a
motoric response was low across all baseline
conditions (M = 20%) and high-p with praise
(M = 11%) conditions. However, his compli-
ance increased during the high-p with edible
conditions (M = 100%; see upper panel of
Figure 3). Alex’s compliance with the vocal
low-p instruction when the high-p instructions
were vocal was low across all baseline condi-
tions (M = 21%), high-p with praise
(M = 41%) and high-p with edible conditions
(M = 33%). When differential reinforcement
was arranged for the target response, compli-
ance increased (M = 92%; see lower panel of
Figure 3).
Figure 4 shows percent compliance with the
low-p vocal task using a motor high-p (upper
panel) and vocal high-p (lower panel) for
7
Ed. Ed’s compliance with the vocal low-p
instruction when the high-p instructions were
motoric was low in baseline (M = 44%) and
high-p with praise (M = 33%) conditions. The
high-p with edible condition produced increase
in compliance (M = 69% in first phase and
100% in second phase; see upper panel of
Figure 4). Ed’s compliance with the vocal low-
p instruction when the high-p instructions were
vocal was also relatively low in baseline
(M = 54%) and high-p with praise (M = 55%)
conditions. His compliance in the high-p with
edible condition increased (M = 85%; see
lower panel of Figure 4).
DISCUSSION
A variation of the high-p instructional
sequence, which included the delivery of an
edible item contingent upon compliance with
each high-p instruction, was effective for five of
eight applications across the two participants.
For three applications, differential reinforce-
ment of compliance to low-p instruction using
an edible item was necessary, as no form of the
high-p sequence attempted was effective. Of
the five applications in which the high-p
sequence was effective, the topography of the
response required to comply with high-p
instructions matched the topography of the
response required to comply with the low-p
instruction in two applications (i.e., motor
high-p matched the motor low-p for Ed and
vocal high-p matched the vocal low-p for Ed).
However, for the other three applications, the
topography of the response required to comply
with the high-p tasks did not match the topog-
raphy of the response required to comply with
the low-p instruction (motor high-p did not
match the vocal low-p for Ed, vocal high-p did
not match the motor low-p for Ed, and motor
high-p did not match the vocal low-p for Alex).
A similar response topography of high-p
instruction was present in two of three applica-
tions in which the high-p sequence was
8 JOSHUA L. LIPSCHULTZ et al.

Figure 2. Compliance with the motor low-p instruction when the high-p instructions were motoric across baseline,
high-p with praise, and high-p with edible conditions for Ed (upper panel); compliance with the motor low-p instruc-
tion when the high-p instructions were vocal across baseline, high-p with praise, and high-p with edible conditions for
Ed (lower panel).
 HIGH-P AND LOW-P INSTRUCTION SIMILARTITY
ineffective (Alex’s motor high-p matched his
motor low-p and Alex’s vocal high-p matched
his vocal high-p). Thus, these data suggest that
topographic similarity of the response required
during high-p instructions to low-p instructions
is not an important factor in the effectiveness
of the high-p sequence, at least in the context
of common academic and social instructions
typically delivered in preschool classrooms. Of
course, this conclusion is tentative, given the
small number of participants in the current
study.
Interestingly, the high-p sequence with
praise was never effective in increasing compli-
ance. Of the five applications in which the
high-p sequence was efficacious in increasing
low-p compliance the delivery of an edible item
(identified via a preference assessment), contin-
gent upon compliance with each high-p
instruction, was necessary. These data are con-
sistent with previous research (Wilder, Majda-
lany, Sturkie, & Smeltz, 2015), suggesting that
the high-p sequence is more efficacious when
edible items, instead of praise, are delivered
contingent upon compliance with high-p
instructions. In the current study, no separate
assessment was conducted to determine partici-
pant preference for praise or the extent to
which praise functioned as a reinforcer. Given
the results, it does not appear that praise was a
reinforcer for compliance with these instruc-
tions. Future research should conduct formal
assessments of stimuli delivered contingent
upon compliance with high-p instructions.
Future research should also examine the use of
a variety of reinforcers delivered for compliance
with high-p instructions to verify that some
reinforcers are indeed more effective. The
mechanism responsible for this should also be
examined. It is possible that higher preference
items are discriminative for the delivery of
those same high-preference items contingent
upon compliance with the low-p instruction.
In addition to the possibility that the high-p
sequence may be most effective when certain
9
types of reinforcers are delivered contingent
upon compliance with high-p instructions, it is
also possible that the degree of preference for
the tasks selected as high-p instructions affects
compliance with the low-p instruction. That is,
although high-p instructions, by definition,
include tasks for which compliance is likely,
some high-p tasks are presumably more pre-
ferred than others. It is possible that high pref-
erence high-p instructions or tasks are more
likely to evoke compliance than less preferred,
but still high-p, instructions or tasks. Future
research should examine this possibility.
Previous research has suggested that topo-
graphic similarity of the response required in
the high-p and low-p instructions could be a
factor in the effectiveness of the high-p
sequence, but these studies were largely con-
ducted in the context of the treatment of food
selectivity or refusal, with the exception of Esch
and Fryling (2013). It is possible that topo-
graphic similarity may be particularly important
only in that context. That is, there may be
something about the feeding context or the
instructions delivered when presenting food
that makes topographic similarity key to
increasing compliance. One possibility is that
the motor behavior required of participants
when complying with high-p instructions
(i.e., opening the mouth, chewing, and swal-
lowing) is identical to the motor behavior
required when complying with the low-p
instruction in the feeding context. This is typi-
cally not the case outside of the feeding con-
text, in which response topographies may
slightly vary across high-p and low-p instruc-
tions. The momentum created by repeatedly
performing an identical motor response may
enhance the effects of the high-p sequence.
Future research might systematically vary the
required motor response when using the high-p
sequence in the feeding context (e.g., alternate
sips of a drink with bites of food) to examine
this possibility. It is possible that the mecha-
nism responsible for the effects of the high-p
10 JOSHUA L. LIPSCHULTZ et al.

Figure 3. Compliance with the vocal low-p instruction when the high-p instructions were motoric across baseline,
high-p with praise, high-p with edible, and differential reinforcement (DR) conditions for Alex (upper panel); compli-
ance with the vocal low-p instruction when the high-p instructions were vocal across baseline, high-p with praise, and
high-p with edible conditions for Alex (lower panel).
 HIGH-P AND LOW-P INSTRUCTION SIMILARTITY 11

Figure 4. Compliance with the vocal low-p instruction when the high-p instructions were motoric across baseline,
high-p with praise, and high-p with edible conditions for Ed (upper panel); compliance with the vocal low-p instruction
when the high-p instructions were vocal across baseline, high-p with praise, and high-p with edible conditions for Ed
(lower panel).
12 JOSHUA L. LIPSCHULTZ et al.
sequence is different in the feeding context;
compliance with various tasks likely has dispa-
rate origins and reinforcement histories.
In the current study, the motor and vocal
high-p instructions required similar physical
movements and had similar response dimen-
sions. However, the specific type of motor
response and the specific type of vocal verbal
behavior did slightly differ. That is, we used
high-p instructions which evoked behavior sim-
ilar, but not identical, to the low-p instructions.
As described above, in feeding research, the
degree of difference between the compliant
response with the high-p instructions and the
compliant response with the low-p instructions
is often smaller. However, outside of the feed-
ing context, the high-p instructions have taken
a variety of forms and have not always been
identical to the low-p instruction. Future
research should use identical instructions out-
side of the feeding context to further determine
if the degree of similarity between tasks is an
important factor in the effectiveness of the
procedure.
Despite the recent increase in research on
the high-p instructional sequence (c.f.,
Lipschultz & Wilder, 2017), the delivery of
preferred stimuli may be more important than
any high-p instructional feature to increase
compliance with a low-p instruction. Previous
research has found that contingent access to
preferred edibles is often more effective than
the high-p sequence to improve compliance
with a low-p instruction (Lipschultz, Wilder, &
Enderli, 2017). Given this, the relative utility
of the high-p sequence with contingent rein-
forcement may be unclear in comparison to
directly reinforcing low-p compliance (without
a high-p sequence). Thus, future research
should evaluate the relative impact of these
treatments in the classroom and the degree to
which learning is interrupted using both of
these procedures. Additionally, future research
should further compare and contrast these
strategies with other commonly used
procedures to increase compliance (e.g., the
guided compliance procedure).
Overall, these data suggest that the topo-
graphic similarity of the response required dur-
ing high-p instructions to the response required
during low-p instructions may be less impor-
tant, at least as examined in the current study,
than previous research (i.e., Esch & Fryling,
2013) has suggested. Future research should
continue to examine the variables that might
be responsible for the effects of the high-p
instructional sequence. For example, another
variable that could influence the effectiveness of
the sequence is the ratio of high-p to low-p
instructions. Although many studies have used
a 3:1 ratio, other ratios such as 5:1 may be
more effective. Future research should also
examine the relationship between high-p
instructions and the effort required to comply
with various low-p instructions. It is possible
that the high-p sequence is more effective with
instructions that require less effort relative to
those which require more effort.
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. M., & McMillan, K. (2001). Parental use
of escape extinction and differential reinforcement to
treat food selectivity. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 34, 511-515. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.
2001.34-511
Esch, K., & Fryling, M. J. (2013). A comparison of two
variations of the high-probability instructional
sequence with a child with autism. Education &
Treatment of Children, 36, 61-72. https://doi.org/10.
1353/etc.2013.0008
Ewry, D. M., & Fryling, M. J. (2016). Evaluating the
high-probability instructional sequence to increase
the acceptance of foods with an adolescent with
autism. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9, 380-383.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-015-0098-4
Fisher, W. W, Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G.,
Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992).
A comparison of two approaches for identifying rein-
forcers for persons with severe and profound disabil-
ities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491-
498. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491
Lee, D. L. (2005). Increasing compliance: A quantitative
synthesis of applied research on high-probability
 HIGH-P AND LOW-P INSTRUCTION SIMILARTITY
request sequences. Exceptionality, 13, 141-154.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327035ex1303_1
Lipschultz, J., & Wilder, D. A. (2017). Recent research
on the high-probability instructional sequence: A
brief review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50,
424-428. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.378
Lipschultz, J. L., Wilder, D. A., & Enderli, A. (2017).
Effects of response independent delivery of preferred
items and the high-probability instructional sequence
on compliance. Behavioral Interventions, 32, 144-151.
https://doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1002/bin.1474
Mace, F. C., Hock, M. L., Lalli, J. S., West, B. J.,
Belfiore, P., Pinter, E., & Brown, D. K. (1988).
Behavioral momentum in the treatment of noncom-
pliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 123-
141. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1988.21-123
Meier, A. E., Fryling, M. J., & Wallace, M. D. (2012).
Using high-probability foods to increase the accep-
tacne of low-probability foods. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 45, 149-153. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jaba.2012.45-149
Patel, M., Reed, G. K., Piazza, C. C., Mueller, M.,
Bachmeyer, M. H., & Layer, S. A. (2007). Use of a
high-probability instructional sequence to increase
13
compliance to feeding demands in the absence of
escape extinction. Behavioral Interventions, 22, 305-
310. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.251
Rortvedt, A. K., & Miltenberger, R. G. (1994). Analysis
of a high-probability instructional sequence and time-
out in the treatment of child noncompliance. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 327-330. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-327
Wilder, D. A., Majdalany, L., Sturkie, L., & Smeltz, L.
(2015). Further evaluation of the high-probability
instructional sequence with and without programmed
reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.218
Wilder, D. A., Zonneveld, K., Harris, C., Marcus, A., &
Reagan, R. (2007). Further analysis of antecedent
interventions on preschoolers’ compliance. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 535-539. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.2007.40-535
Received March 29, 2017
Final acceptance April 23, 2018
Action Editor, Griffin Rooker