Prompt dependency is a common problem for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities and especially for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Clark and Green (2004) defined prompt dependency as an individual’s correct responding being dependent on the controlling prompt of the therapist with little progress made in fading the prompt. This may occur as a result of the continual prompting that many children with ASD receive during one-on-one academic instruction, or may be related to processing deficits (Hume et al. 2009). Many children with ASD are taught specific skills using least-to-most (LTM) prompting (Horner & Keilitz, 1975). In LTM prompting, also known as a prompting hierarchy, learners are given a verbal instruction, followed by successively more intrusive prompts if they fail to respond accurately. The verbal prompt is followed by a model prompt in which learners are shown the correct answer and if they do not respond or respond incorrectly, they are physically guided to answer correctly. With this model, learners are not typically given the opportunity to respond independently to determine if they can do the task on their own. Thus, this approach encourages prompt dependency, particularly to the model prompt (Vladescu & Kodak, 2010). Prompt dependency can be problematic for children in classroom settings as it leads to additional prompts which may be distracting to other students’ learning (Anson et al. 2008), requires constant supervision for task completion, and encourages passive or slower learning, particularly when less powerful reinforcers such as praise are used. In many cases, the goal for instruction is to increase independent responding, which would also lead to increased opportunities for inclusion (Vladescu & Kodak, 2010). Studies have attempted to address the problem of overreliance on prompting, either by increasing responding to a verbal prompt or increasing independence. Hume et al. (2009) conducted a review of three studies that attempted to increase independent responding in children with ASD. The authors found that individuals with ASD have more difficulty with independent functioning, such as difficulty in initiating activities, trouble with generalization of skills, and prompt dependency. They discussed specific approaches that have proven successful at increasing independence within this population, including video modeling, self-monitoring, and individual work systems. Dunlap and Johnson (1985) attempted to increase independence for children with ASD by creating an unpredictable schedule of supervision. Because the children were uncertain when adults would be providing prompts and reinforcement, this increased time on task when the child was alone. Karsten and Carr (2009) increased independent responding by providing highly preferred reinforcers contingent on unprompted responses. All other responses resulted in less preferred items. They noted better performance when a higher percentage of unprompted responses were reinforced as compared to all responses being reinforced. To increase attention to prompts and facilitate correct responding, differential observing responses (DORs) have been used. This procedure was first used by Wyckoff (1952) to train pigeons to emit an observing response, which then produced a discriminative stimulus signaling whether or not key pecks would result in reinforcement. Applied studies have utilized a DOR to facilitate correct responding by having a learner name the word on the first card presented (the sample stimulus) as the observing response, prior to showing them the rest of the cards which were the matching stimuli (Broomfield et al. 2008; Constantine & Sidman, 1975; Geren et al. 1997). This ensures that the learner is attending to the relevant stimuli prior to making a choice. Fisher et al. (2007) used a slightly different DOR procedure in which they used a DOR instead of a gestural prompt to facilitate correct responding to a verbal prompt in a spoken-word match-to-sample task. They compared the use of a LTM prompting procedure (verbal, gestural, full physical) to an identity-matching procedure (LTM + DOR), which was essentially the same except for a DOR replacing the gestural prompt in producing response acquisition on the verbal prompt. A control procedure was also used and the three types of procedures were compared using a multielement design. Their findings suggest that the use of a DOR in place of the gestural prompt increased both participants’ correct responding to the verbal prompt quicker than the other two procedures (LTM and the control). The DOR also decreased impulsive or passive responding, in that the learners had to attend to their own cards to make a correct response and receive reinforcement. There were a few limitations to the Fisher et al. study. First, they did not conduct a pretest of prompt dependency and are therefore unable to say if participants in their study were prompt dependent or not. A possible reason for the success of the Fisher et al. DOR procedure could in fact be that their participants were not prompt dependent. Second, Fisher et al. had two participants in the study and used two different study designs with the test stimuli for each participant. Because there was only one participant per procedure, it is difficult to draw conclusions about either procedure or its effects on compliance. The purpose of this study is to extend the study by Fisher et al. (2007) by evaluating the role of an identity-matching procedure with a DOR on (a) acquisition rates and (b) ability to reduce prompt dependency with two types of academic tasks (i.e., match-to-sample and receptive ID) for children with ASD with and without a history of prompt dependency.