The effectiveness of two extra-stimulus prompting procedures was compared in teaching receptive labels to a 3 year old autistic boy. One prompting procedure was used exclusively by the treatment center the child attended and was similar to extra-stimulus prompts used in previous studies. The procedure involved alternating unprompted trials of a verbal command and physically prompted trials of a verbal command. The second procedure, a modified extra-stimulus prompt, involved the initial presentation of only physical prompts without a verbal command and then the verbal command was faded in while the prompt was faded out. The S acquired a receptive label with each procedure, but he made fewer errors with the modified extra-stimulus prompting procedure. When the verbal command used with each prompting procedure was randomly presented immediately after training and 3 weeks later, the child's accuracy of responding to the verbal command used with the modified extra-stimulus prompting procedure was greater than to the verbal command used with the other extra-stimulus prompting procedure. (Author/CL)