Autism 2014-EBP-Report PDF

Evidence-Based
Practices for
Children, Youth,
and Young Adults
with
Autism Spectrum Disorder
Connie Wong, Samuel L. Odom,

Kara Hume, Ann W. Cox, Angel Fettig,
Suzanne Kucharczyk, Matthew E. Brock,
Joshua B. Plavnick, Veronica P. Fleury, and Tia R. Schultz
Autism Evidence-Based Practice Review Group

Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Evidence-Based Practices for Children, Youth, and Young Adults with
Autism Spectrum Disorder
2014 by Samuel L. Odom
Graphic design: Gina Harrison, FPG Publications Office
Suggested citation: Wong, C., Odom, S. L., Hume, K. Cox, A. W., Fettig, A., Kucharczyk,
S., Schultz, T. R. (2013). Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young ddults
with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank
Porter Graham Child Development Institute, Autism Evidence-Based Practice Review
Group.
This report is available online at

http://autismpdc.fpg.unc.edu/sites/autismpdc.fpg.unc.edu/files/2014-EBP-Report.pdf
Project support was provided by the United States Department of Education, the
Office of Special Education Programs (Project No. H325G070004, National Professional
Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders) and the Institute of Education
Science (Project No. R324B090005, Post-doctoral Training Program on Special Educa-
tion Research). Findings and conclusions of this report are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the policies of either of these funding sources.
FPG Child Development Institute at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is
one of the nations oldest multidisciplinary centers devoted to the study of children
and families. Our mission is to cultivate and share knowledge that enhances child
development and family well being.
Advancing knowledge. Enhancing lives.
B Wong, Odom, Hume, Cox, Fettig, Kucharczyk, Brock, Plavnick, Fleury & Schultz
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Chapter 1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter 2 Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Chapter 3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Chapter 4 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Evidence-Based Practices for Children, Youth, and Young Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder i
Acknowledgements
This report was a group effort, supported by several funding streams and also the volunteer
efforts of many individuals. First, support for this project was provided by two offices within the
United States Department of Education, the Office of Special Education Programs (Project No.
H325G070004, National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders) and
the Institute of Education Science (Project No. R324B090005, Post-doctoral Training Program on
Special Education Research). The findings and conclusions of this report are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect the policies of either of these funding sources.
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the following individuals who provided
assistance, feedback, and guidance during the process of the project: Grace Baranek, Angela
Bardeen, Brian Boyd, Laura Hall, Rob Horner, Julia Shaw-Kokot, and Paul Yoder. The What Works
Clearinghouse/Mathematica staff (Josh Furgeson, Jean Knab, and Stephen Lipscomb) provided
training for a number of the members of our team, which assisted us in designing our meth-
odological review criteria. Also, the following individuals at the Frank Porter Graham Child
Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill provided technical support for
the production of the manual: Jay Hargrove, Gina Harrison, Marie Huff, Katie Hume, Stephanie
Ridley, Dave Shaw, John Sideris, and Cici Sidor.
The many reviewers of the 1000+ articles evaluated in this project donated their time and
intellectual energy, free of charge. They are:
Khaled Alkherainej Miriam Allen Sheryl Alvies

Kristie Asaro-Saddler Jeannine Bagnall Sara Baillie
Erin E. Barton Gail I. Becker Constance C. Beecher
Kyle D. Bennett Natalie Berger Eileen M. Brann
Nicolette Bainbridge Brigham Alicia Brophy Sheila Bulmer
Carol Burmeister Betsy Caporale Christina Carnahan
Amy M. Casey Jeffrey Chan Lynette Chandler
Ching-I Chen Jodi Cholewicki Shelley Clarke
Eric A Common Marissa Congdon Peter Doehring
Elizabeth Drame Sarah Dufek Richard Duggan
Jessica Dykstra Farah El Zein David N. Ellis
Emine Erden Lori Ernsperger Cristan A. Farmer
Sheila Feldbaumer Summer J. Ferreri Carrie Fitzgerald
Nieves Flores Susan D. Flynn Leslie Fox
ii Wong, Odom, Hume, Cox, Fettig, Kucharczyk, Brock, Plavnick, Fleury & Schultz
Dawn W. Fraser Trisha Gallagher Jennifer E. Garcia
Stephanie Gardner Laura M. Geraci Karen L. Gischlar
Kirstin Hall Laura J. Hall Patricia K. Hampshire
Caroline Harkins McCarty Josh Harrower Michelle Hartley-McAndrew
Shane Herriott Michelle Hickman Rebecca Elder Hinshaw
Camilla Hileman Jeffrey F. Hine Susan Hoheisel
Aleksandra Hollingshead Ning Hsu Melissa E. Hudson
Brooke Ingersoll Rose Iovannone Heather Jennett
Allison B. Jobin Irene Jones Melissa Jones-Bromenshenkel
Debra Kamps Eunjoo Kim Anita Kliewer-Malakhim
Scott Kozlowski Lefki Kourea Delilah Krasch
Catherine A. Kunsch Justin B. Leaf Rachel L. Loftin
Jesse Logue Mari MacFarland Wendy Machalicek
Sara Moore Mackiewicz Laura M. Mann Tamara Marder
Micah O. Mazurek Rebecca McCathren Jeanette McCollum
Meaghan McCollow Elizabeth L. W. McKenney Smita Shukla Mehta
Kristine J. Melloy Trube C. Miller Michael J. Morrier
Debra Leach Deanna Luscre Amy McFarlane
Kathleen Artman Meeker Emily R. Monn John Neisworth
Scott Nipper Karen OConnor Meira L. Orentlicher
Cynthia Pearl Sarah E. Pinkelman Naomi L. Rahn
Sarah Reed Christine E. Reeve Debra Reinhartsen
Stephanie Reszka Leila Ansari Ricci Sandra Hess Robbins
Rachel E. Robertson A. Helene Robinson Suzanne Robinson
T. Rowand Robinson Dawn Rowe Cheri Sandford
Jessie Sandoval Alicia Saunders Crystalyn Schnorr
Naomi A. Schoenfeld Ilene Schwartz Peggy Sepetys
Maureen Short Jenzi Silverman Katie Snyder
Candice Southall Scott Spaulding Laurie Sperry
Amy D. Spriggs Melissa Sreckovic Tricia Strickland
Paulo Tan Tran N. Templeton Julie Thompson
Jennifer Toomey Dina A. Traniello Carol M. Trivette
Shu-Fei Tsai Linda Tuchman-Ginsberg Vanessa Tucker
Karen Umstead Stanley Urban Potheini Vaiouli
Kimberly Vannest Joel L. Vidovic Allison Wainer
Linn Wakeford Katherine M. Walton Jenny Wells
Kelly Whalon John J. Wheeler Sheri Wilkins
Elizabeth Worcester Patricia Wright Gulnoza Yakubova
Paul Yoder Cheryl Young-Pelton Jie Zhang
Evidence-Based Practices for Children, Youth, and Young Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder iii
Chapter 1
Introduction
S
ince the discovery of autism as a human condition by Kanner (1943) and Asperger
(1944) in the 1940s, individuals responsible for education and care of children and youth
with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have striven to provide effective practices and
programs. Such efforts continue today. The increased prevalence of ASD has intensified
the demand for effective educational and therapeutic services, and interven-
tion science is now providing evidence about which practices are effective.
The increased prevalence
The purpose of this report is to describe a process for the identification of
of ASD has intensified
evidence-based practices (EBPs) and also to delineate practices that have suf-
the demand for effective
ficient empirical support to be termed evidence-based. In this introduction,
we will briefly review the current conceptualization of ASD, explain the dif- educational and therapeutic
ference between focused intervention practices and comprehensive treatment services, and intervention
models, provide a rationale for narrowing our review to the former, describe science is now providing
other reports that have identified evidence-based practices, briefly describe evidence about which
our first review of the literature (Odom, Collet-Klingenberg, Rogers, & Hatton,
practices are effective.
2010), and lastly provide the rationale for conducting an updated review of
the literature and revision of the former set of practices identified.
In Chapter 2, we describe in detail the methodology followed in searching the literature,
evaluating research studies, and identifying practices. In Chapter 3, the practices are described
along with the type of outcomes individual practices generate and the age of children for whom
the outcomes were found. In Chapter 4, we summarize the findings, discuss their relationship to
other reviews, compare the current review process to the previous process, identify limitations
of this review, and propose implications of study results for practice and future research. In the
Appendix, each practice is described and specific studies that provide empirical support for the
practice are listed.
Autism Spectrum Disorder:
Diagnostic Criteria
The definition of autism has evolved over the years. Early on, Kanner (1943) noted that autism was
characterized by failure to develop social relationships and a need for sameness. The characteristics,
stated slightly differently, continue to define the condition today. In the United States, the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Associa-
tion (APA, 1994, 2013) has provided the most well accepted diagnostic criteria, and as this report
goes into print, the criteria have changed. In the fourth edition of the manual (DSM IV), Autistic
Disorder was an established condition defined by social, language, and behavioral characteristics,
but there were several other conditions that shared similar characteristics [i.e., Asperger syndrome,
Retts syndrome, and Pervasive Developmental Disorders, Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS)].
These diagnostic classifications were grouped under a broader classification called Pervasive Devel-
opmental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). With the advent of DSM 5, there is
only one diagnostic classification, termed Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Similar to the earlier diagnostic classification, ASD is identified by two primary diagnostic
markers: difficulties in social communication and restricted or repetitive behaviors and interests.
Examples of difficulties in social communication include challenges in social reciprocity, nonver-
bal social behaviors, and establishment of social relationships. Restrictive and repetitive behav-
iors include stereotypic behavior or speech, excessive adherence to routines, and highly fixated
interests. Rather than specify severity of ASD, the DSM 5 has the option of describing the level
of support an individual would need. In addition, in the DSM 5, co-occurring conditions, such
as intellectual disability or attention deficit hyperactive disorder, may also be diagnosed when a
diagnosis of ASD is made. In the DSM IV, this overlap was not allowed.
Because our literature review spans several decades and several editions of the DSM, we
have included studies whose participants are identified as having autism, autistic disorder, ASD,
Asperger syndrome, or PDD-NOS. In addition, we have included studies in which participants
may also have had co-occurring conditions such as intellectual disability, speech/language im-
pairment, seizure disorder, sensory impairment, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Demographic Information
The prevalence of ASD, as noted, has increased markedly over the past two decades, rising from
2 per 10,000 in 1990 to between 1 in 50 and 1 in 88 children (Blumberg, et al., 2013; Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 2012) according to the latest report from the U.S. Centers for Dis-
ease Control and Prevention. ASD is diagnosed about three times more frequently in boys than in
girls. Intellectual disability was once thought to be a condition that typically accompanied ASD;
2 Wong, Odom, Hume, Cox, Fettig, Kucharczyk, Brock, Plavnick, Fleury & Schultz
however, current estimates are that 35% of individuals with ASD score above the IQ cutoff (i.e.,
around 70 depending on the test) for intellectual disability (Dykens & Lense, 2011).
Intervention Approaches
Two broad classes of interventions appear in the research literature (Smith, 2013), and we have
identified them as comprehensive treatment models and focused intervention practices. Although
the current review concentrated on the latter class of interventions, it is important to describe
both in order to distinguish the two.
Comprehensive Treatment Models

Comprehensive treatment models (CTMs) consist of a set of practices designed to achieve a
broad learning or developmental impact on the core deficits of ASD. In their reivew of education
programs for children with autism, the National Academy of Science Committee on Educational
Interventions for Children with Autism (National Research Council, 2001) identified 10 CTMs.
Examples included the UCLA Young Autism Program by Lovaas and colleagues (Smith, Groen, &
Winn, 2000), the TEACCH program developed by Schopler and colleagues (Marcus, Schopler, &
Lord, 2000), the LEAP model (Strain & Hoyson, 2000), and the Denver model designed by Rogers
and colleagues (Rogers, Hall, Osaki, Reaven, & Herbison, 2000). In a follow-up to the National
Academy review, Odom, Boyd, Hall, and Hume (2010) identified 30 CTM programs operating
within the U.S. These programs were characterized by organization (i.e., around a conceptual
framework), operationalization (i.e., procedures manualized), intensity (i.e., substantial number
of hours per week), longevity (i.e., occur across one or more years), and breadth of outcome focus
(i.e., multiple outcomes such as communication, behavior, social competence targeted) (Odom,
Boyd, Hall, & Hume, in press).
Focused Intervention Practices

In contrast, focused intervention practices are designed to address a single skill or goal of a student
with ASD (Odom et al., 2010). These practices are operationally defined, address specific learner
outcomes, and tend to occur over a shorter time period than CTMs (i.e., until the individual goal is
achieved). Examples include discrete trial teaching, pivotal response training, prompting, and video
modeling. Focused intervention practices could be considered the building blocks of educational
programs for children and youth with ASD, and they are highly salient features of the CTMs just
described. For example, peer-mediated instruction and intervention (Sperry, Neitzel, & Engelhardt-
Wells, 2010), is a key feature of the LEAP model (Strain & Bovey, 2011).
The purpose of the current review is to identify focused intervention practices that
have evidence of effectiveness in promoting positive outcomes for learners with ASD. Focused
Evidence-Based Practices for Children, Youth, and Young Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder 3
intervention practices that meet the evidence criteria specified in the next chapter are designated
as evidence-based practices (EBP). Teachers and other service providers may select these practices
when designing an individualized education or intervention program because of the evidence that
they produce outcomes similar to the goals established for children and youth with ASD. Odom,
Hume, Boyd, and Stabel (2012) described this as a technical eclectic approach and the National Pro-
fessional Development Center on ASD has designed a process through which these practices could
be systematically employed in early intervention and school-based programs (Cox et al., 2013).
Previous Literature Reviews of

EBPs for Children and Youth with ASD
The historical roots of EBP for students with ASD are within the evidence-based medicine move-
ment that emerged from England in the 1960s and the formation of the Cochrane Collaboration
to host reviews of the literature about scientifically supported practices in medicine (http://www.
cochrane.org/). The subsequent adoption of the evidence-based conceptual approach in the
social sciences is exemplified in the work of the Campbell Collaboration (http://www.campbell-
collaboration.org/) and currently the What Works Clearinghouse (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/).
In the 1990s, the American Psychological Association Division 12 established criteria for classify-
ing an intervention practice as efficacious or probably efficacious, which provided a precedent
for quantifying the amount and type of evidence needed for establishing practices as evidence-
based (Chambless & Hollon, 1998; Chambless et al., 1996).
Previous to the mid-2000s, the identification of EBPs for children and youth with ASD was
accomplished through narrative reviews by sets of authors or organizations (e.g., Simpson, 2005).
Although these reviews were systematic and useful, they did not follow a stringent review process
that incorporated clear criteria for including or excluding studies for the reviews or organizing
the information into sets of practices. In addition, many traditional systematic review processes,
such as the Cochrane Collaborative, have only included studies that employed a randomized ex-
perimental group design (also called randomized control trial or RCT) and have excluded single
case design (SCD) studies. By excluding SCD studies, such reviews a) omit a vital experimental
research methodology now being recognized as a valid scientific approach (Kratochwill et al.,
2013) and b) eliminate the major body of research literature on interventions for children and
youth with ASD. Two reviews have specifically focused their work on interventions (also called
treatments) for children and youth with ASD, included both group and SCD studies, followed
a systematic process for evaluating evidence before including (or excluding) it in their review,
and identified a specific set of interventions that have evidence of efficacy. These reviews were
conducted by the National Standards Project (NSP) at the National Autism Center (2009) and the
National Professional Development Center on ASD (NPDC).
National Standards Project (NSP)
The NSP conducted a comprehensive review of the literature that included early experimental
studies on interventions for children and youth with ASD and extended through September 2007
(National Autism Center, 2009). Their search, after excluding articles that did not meet their
criteria, yielded a total of 775 studies. Using a standard evaluation process, NSP staff recruited
and trained a national set of reviewers, who completed ratings of group and SCD studies. These
ratings then generated a strength of evidence score, which the NSP staff used to determine
which practices were evidence-based. They identified 11 practices as established treatments (see
the top row of Table 1). In addition, they identified 22 practices as emerging treatments, meaning
that there was some evidence but it was not strong enough to meet the established criteria. Also,
they found five practices for which researchers demonstrated, experimentally, that there were no
effects, and no practices they would characterize as ineffective/harmful.
National Professional Development Center on ASD (NPDC)

The NPDC also conducted a review of the literature, although it only included articles published
over the 10-year period from 1997 to 2007 (Odom, Collet-Klingenberg, et al., 2010). NPDC staff
began with a computer search of the literature, first using autism and related terms for the search
and specifying outcomes. They then used the research design quality indicator criteria estab-
lished by the CEC-Division for Research (Gersten et al., 2005; Horner et al., 2005) to evaluate
articles for inclusion or exclusion from the review. This review yielded 175 articles. They content
analyzed the intervention methodologies, created intervention categories, and sorted articles
into those categories. Adapting criteria from the Chambless et al. (1996) group, they found that
24 focused intervention practices met the criteria for being evidence-based (see the left column
of Table 1). For some practices that were developed in the 1980s, foundational articles from the
earlier time period were included if they were routinely cited in the articles from the 10 year time
period. To translate this scientific review into practice, NPDC investigators and staff developed
online training modules, which can be accessed from the NPDC website
(http://autismpdc.fpg.unc.edu/content/autism-internet-modules-aim).
Similarities Between The Two Reviews

Although the NSP and NPDC reviews were conducted independently and their literature searches
cover different time periods, their findings are remarkably similar. The EBPs identified by each
group appear in Table 1, with (as noted) the NSP established treatments in the top row and the
NPDC EBPs in the first column. Some of the NSP classification of established treatments included
several of the focused interventions that NPDC had classified as evidence-based. For example,
the NSP antecedent package included three focused interventions NPDC identified, and the NSP
Table 1.
Evidence-Based Practices from
NPDC and NSP
(Hume & Odom, 2011)
behavioral package incorporated seven NPDC EBPs. There were six NPDC focused intervention
EBPs that did not appear in the NSP list of established treatments, but five of the six had been
identified by NSP as emerging practices. In all, the message was one of convergence across two
independent data sources.
Rationale for Current NPDC Review

The NPDC staff undertook the current review to broaden and update the previous review. Many
researchers have made recent contributions to the ASD intervention literature, so one purpose
of the current review was to incorporate the intervention literature from the years subsequent to
the initial review (i.e., 2007-2011). A second purpose was to expand the timeframe previous to
the initial review, extending the coverage to 1990 to be consistent with other research synthesis
organizations in going back approximately 20 years (e.g., What Works Clearinghouse, WWC). The
third purpose was to create and utilize a broader and more rigorous review process than occurred
in the previous review. In the current review, we recruited and trained a national set of review-
ers to evaluate articles from the literature rather than relying exclusively on NPDC staff. Also, we
developed a standard article evaluation process that incorporated criteria from several parallel
reviews that have occurred (NSP; WWC). As such, the review that we present in the following
chapters includes a new and expanded database of articles, a new evaluation process, and new or
modified focused intervention categories.
Chapter 2
Method
I
n this chapter, we describe the methodology utilized in this EBP review. An initial descrip-
tion of inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies is followed by a summary of the search process
and articles accessed for the review. Reviewer training, the review process, and the process for
documentary evidence-based practices conclude the chapter.
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria for Studies in the Review

Articles included in this review were published in peer-reviewed, English language journals be-
tween 1990 and 2011 and tested the efficacy of focused intervention practices. Using a conceptual
framework followed by the Cochrane Collaborative [Participants, Interventions, Comparison,
Outcomes, Study Design (PICO)], we list the study inclusion criteria in Table 2.
Population/Participants
To qualify for the review, participants in a study had to be Table 2. Inclusion Criteria for Studies
between birth and 22 years of age and identified as having ASD: Population/ Individuals with ASD
Participants between birth and 22 years of age
autism, Asperger syndrome, pervasive developmental disorder
Behavioral, developmental, or educational in
(PDD), pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise speci- nature and could be implemented in
Interventions:
fied (PDD-NOS), or high-functioning autism (HFA). Individuals typical educational intervention settings
(school, home, community)
with ASD who also had co-occurring conditions were included
Interventions compared to no intervention or
in this review. These conditions could be intellectual disability, Comparison
alternate intervention conditions
genetic syndrome (e.g., Fragile X, Down syndrome), seizure Behavioral, developmental, or
Outcomes
academic outcomes
disorder, mental illness (e.g., anxiety, depression, obsessive
Experimental group design,
compulsive disorder), attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder Study Design quasi-experimental group design, or
x(ADHD), physical disability (e.g., cerebral palsy, orthopedic single-case design
impairment), sensory impairment (e.g., hearing or visual im-

pairment), or learning disability.
Interventions
To be included in this review, the focused intervention practices examined in a study had to
be behavioral, developmental, and/or educational in nature. Studies in which the independent
variables were only medications, alternative/complementary medicine (e.g., chelation, neuro-
feedback, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, acupuncture), or nutritional supplements/special diets
(e.g., melatonin, gluten-casein free, vitamins) were excluded from the review. In addition, only
interventions that could be practically implemented in typical educational, home, or community
settings were included. As such, intervention practices requiring highly specialized materials,
equipment, or locations unlikely to be available in most educational, clinic, community, or home
settings were also excluded (e.g., dolphin therapy, hyperbaric chambers).
Comparison
For inclusion in the review, the design of the study had to compare an experimental or treatment
condition (i.e., in which the focused intervention practice was implemented) to at least one other
condition in which the treatment was not implemented or an alternative intervention condition
was implemented. All relevant features of the comparison condition had to be described to allow
for a clear understanding of the differences between the conditions. If the control was business
as usual instruction, the instructional or classroom environment had to be described.
Outcomes
Additionally, focused intervention practices had to generate behavioral, developmental, or
academic outcomes (i.e., these were dependent variables in the studies). These outcome data
could be discrete behaviors (e.g., social initiations, stereotypies) assessed observationally, ratings
of behavior or student performance (e.g., the Social Responsiveness Scale), standardized assess-
ments (e.g., nonverbal IQ tests, developmental assessments), and/or informal assessment of stu-
dent academic performances (e.g., percentage of correct answers on an instructional task, time).
Studies reporting both behavioral and health/medical outcomes for children were included, but
studies only reporting physical health outcomes were excluded from the review. Studies reporting
only mental health outcomes were included.
Study design
Finally, studies included in the review had to employ an experimental group design, quasi-
experimental design, or SCD to test the efficacy of focused intervention practices. Adequate
group designs included randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-experimental designs (QED),
or regression discontinuity designs (RDD) that compared an experimental/treatment group
receiving the intervention to at least one other control or comparison group that did not receive
the intervention or received another intervention (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). SCD studies
had to employ within subjects (cases) designs that compared responding of an individual in one
condition to the same individual during another condition. Acceptable SCDs for this review were
withdrawal of treatment (e.g., ABAB), multiple baseline, multiple probe, alternating treatment,
and changing criterion designs (Kratchowill et al., 2013).
Search Process
Research articles were obtained through an electronic library search of published studies. Before
beginning the search, our research team and two university librarians from the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill developed and refined the literature search plan. One librarian had
special expertise in the health sciences literature and the second had expertise in the behavioral
and social sciences literature.
Library databases representing a range of disciplines were used in the literature search.
These databases were:
Academic Search Complete
Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)
Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE)
Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC)
PsycINFO
Social Work Abstracts
MEDLINE
Thomson Reuters (ISI) Web of Knowledge
Sociological Abstracts
Unlike our previous review, we designed search terms very broadly to increase the likeli-
hood that we would identify all studies meeting the inclusion criteria. For a comprehensive search
of the ASD intervention literature, search terms were limited to two categories: one category of
terms to capture articles studying individuals with ASD (i.e., any of the terms in the diagnostic
column of Table 3) and one
Table 3. Search Terms
category of terms to retrieve Category Qualifying Terms
articles testing an interven- Diagnostic autism or Asperger or pervasive developmental disorder
tion (i.e., any of the terms in AND
the intervention column of Intervention intervention or treatment or practice or strategy or therapy or program or procedure
Table 3). Terms were modi-
fied as necessary when searching the different databases. The only filters used were language
(English) and publication date (19902011).
After eliminating duplicate articles retrieved from
Figure 1.
the different databases, the initial broad search yielded
Screening progression and number of articles
29,106 articles that related to ASD and intervention. The
research team then conducted two rounds of screening
to select articles that fit the study parameters (see Figure
2). The first round of screening focused on titles. Since
the search terms were broad, approximately 88 percent
of the articles did not meet the study inclusion criteria.
Articles excluded at this stage were primarily those that
clearly stated in the title to be commentaries, letters to
the editor, reviews, and biological or medical studies.
The second round of screening was an examination of
abstracts to determine if the article included participants
with ASD under 22 years of age and used an experimental
group design, quasi-experimental group design, or SCD.
In both rounds of screening, articles were retained if the
necessary information was not clearly presented in the
titles and abstracts (i.e., if the reviewer could not tell from
the title or abstract if the article was appropriate). This
screening procedure resulted in 1,090 articles, 213 utiliz-
ing a group design and 877 using SCD methodology. All of
these articles were retrieved and archived in PDF form for
the next step in the review process.
Review Process
The review process consisted of establishing review crite-
ria, recruiting reviewers, training reviewers, and conduct-
ing the review.
Review Criteria and Protocols

Protocols for reviewing group design and SCD studies were used to determine methodologi-
cal acceptability (see Appendix 1), to describe the key features of the study (e.g., participants,
type of design), and to describe the intervention procedures. The initial protocols drew from the
methodological quality indicators developed by Gersten and colleagues (2005) for group design
and Horner et al. (2005) for SCD, as well as the current review guidelines established by the
WWC. Protocols went through two iterations of pilot testing within the research group and then
were reviewed by two national leaders in research methodology and intervention research, with
expertise in SCD and group design, respectively. From this process the protocols were finalized
and formatted for online use.
Recruiting Reviewers
To assist in reviewing the identified articles, external reviewers were recruited through profes-
sional organizations (e.g., Association for Behavior Analysis International, Council for Excep-
tional Children) and departments of education, psychology, health sciences, and related fields
in higher-education institutions. To be accepted as a reviewer, individuals must have had some
experience with or knowledge about ASD and have taken a course or training related to group
design and/or SCD research methodology. The reviewers self-identified their methodological
expertise and interests as group, SCD, or both.
Reviewer Training
For both design types, the research team developed training procedures for external reviewers
that included an online training module describing the project and explaining each item on the
review protocols. Additionally, examples and non-examples of each protocol item were presented
in the training. The training modules also included instructions for coding descriptive features of
articles that were determined as having acceptable experimental methodology. Reviewers coded
participant information (diagnosis, co-occurring conditions, age), intervention information
(name, description, and intervention category), and outcomes (variable name, description, and
outcome category). Reviewers could also identify any concerns or issues encountered during the
article review process.
After completing the reviewer training, external reviewers were required to demonstrate
that they could accurately apply reviewer criteria by evaluating one article of their assigned
design type. The reviewers evaluation was then compared to a master code file established for
the article and their accuracy was calculated. Accuracy was defined as the rater coding the same
answer on an item as occurred in the master code file. Criterion for acceptable accuracy was set
at 80%. In addition, reviewers were required to correctly determine whether the article met mini-
mum criteria for review eligibility (see the section on inclusion/exclusion criteria).
Reviewers had two opportunities to meet accuracy criteria. If reviewers met qualifications
and expressed interest in reviewing group design articles, they completed the group design train-
ing module and established inter-rater agreement with a group design study. If reviewers met
qualifications and expressed interest in reviewing SCD articles, they completed the SCD training
module and established inter-rater agreement with only the SCD study. If reviewers met qualifi-
cations and expressed interest in reviewing both types of design, they completed both training
modules and had to establish inter-rater agreement with both types
Table 4. Reviewer Demographics
of articles.
Reviewer Training/Certification n
Single case design 100 One hundred fifty-nine reviewers completed the training and
Group design 39 met inter-rater agreement criteria with the master code files. All
Single case and group design 20 reviewers had a doctoral degree, masters degree, or were enrolled in a
Degree level n graduate education program at the time of the review. Most reviewers
Masters degree or current graduate student 65
received their degrees in the area of special education or psychol-
Doctorate 94
ogy and were faculty (current or retired), researchers, or graduate
Degree area n
Applied Behavior Analysis 9
students. The majority of reviewers had professional experience in
Education 11 a classroom, clinic, or home setting and conducted research related
Occupational Sciences 3 to individuals with ASD. In addition, approximately one-third of the
Psychology 28 reviewers (n=53) had Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA) or
School Psychology 5 Board Certified Assistant Behavior Analyst (BCaBA) certification. All
Special Education 97
reviewers received a certificate of participation in the EBP training
Speech/Language 3
and article review. Continuing education credits were available to cer-
Other (music, neurology, social work) 3
Current Position n tified BCBA/BCaBA reviewers. Information about reviewers appears
Faculty 68 in Table 4.
Researcher 14
Graduate student 46 Inter-rater Agreement
Practitioner/administrator 31 Research staff collected inter-rater agreement for 41% of the articles
Experience with ASD* n across all reviewers. The formula for inter-rater agreement was total
Teaching in classroom setting 109 agreements divided by agreements plus disagreements multiplied
Providing intervention in clinical setting 76
by 100%. Two levels of agreement were calculated: 1) agreement on
Providing intervention in home setting 103
individual items of the review protocol and 2) agreement on the sum-
Conducting ASD research 117
Teaching college level course on ASD 84 mative evaluation of whether a study met or did not meet criteria for
*Reviewers may have reported more than one type of inclusion in the review. Mean inter-rater agreement on the individual
experience with ASD
study design evaluation criteria was 84% for group design articles
and 92% for SCD articles, generating a total mean agreement of 91%. Mean inter-rater agreement
for summary decisions about article inclusion was 74% for group design articles and 77% for
SCD articles, generating a total agreement of 76%.
Final Review Process

Each reviewer received between 5 and 12 articles. In total, they evaluated 1,090 articles. Articles
that did not meet all the criteria in the group or SCD protocols were excluded from the database
of articles providing evidence of a practice. As a final check, members of the EBP evaluation team
reviewed each article that had been identified as meeting criteria by reviewers as well as articles
that were flagged by reviewers for further review by the evaluation team. Studies that did not
meet criteria were then eliminated from the database.
Analysis and Grouping Literature

The review process resulted in 456 articles meeting inclusion
criteria for study parameters. A process of content analysis Criteria for Qualification
(Krippendorff, 1980) was then followed using procedures estab- as an Evidence-Based Practice
lished in the first NPDC review (Odom, Collet-Klingenberg, et

al., 2010). Because categories for practices were already created

by the NPDC (e.g., reinforcement, discrete trial teaching, pivotal
response training), these categories and established defini-

tions were initially used to sort the articles. If a practice was
not sorted into an existing category, it was placed in a general

outlier pool. A second round of content analysis was then con-
ducted to create new categories. Following a constant compara-
tive method, a category and definition was created for a practice

in the first outlier study, the intervention practice in the second
study was compared to the first study and if it was not similar,
a second practice category and definition was created. This
process continued until studies were either sorted into the new
categories or the study remained as an idiosyncratic practice. Seven articles were used to support
two different practice categories because it either demonstrated efficacy of two different practices
as compared to a control group or baseline phase or the article presented several studies showing
efficacy for different practices. Finally, research staff reviewed all articles sorted into categories.
For individual studies, they compared the practices reported in the method section with the
definition of the practice into which the study had been sorted.
When all articles were assembled into categories, a final determination was then made
about whether a practice met the level of evidence necessary to be classified as an EBP using
criteria for evidence established by the NPDC. The NPDCs criteria were drawn from the work
of Nathan and Gorman (2007), Rogers and Vismara (2008), Horner and colleagues (2005), and
Gersten and colleagues (2005), as well as the earlier work by the APA Division 12 (Chambless
& Hollon, 1998). It specifies that a practice is considered evidence-based if it was supported
by: (a) two high quality experimental or quasi-experimental design studies conducted by two
different research groups, or (b) five high quality single case design studies conducted by three
different research groups and involving a total of 20 participants across studies, or (c) there is a
combination of research designs that must include at least one high quality experimental/quasi-
experimental design, three high quality single case designs, and be conducted by more than one
researcher or research group. These criteria are aligned with criteria proposed by other agencies
and organizations (Chambless & Hollon, 1998; Kratochwill & Sheroff, 2002; Odom et al., 2004).
Chapter 3
Results
I
n this chapter, we report the findings from the evidence-based practices review. The
summary of these findings includes information about the types of experimental designs
employed in the studies, participants, the identified evidence-based practices, outcomes
addressed by the EBPs, and practices that had some empirical support but did not meet the
criteria for this review.
Design Types Figure 2. Study Designs

Of the 456 studies accepted as providing scientific
evidences, 48 utilized a group design (see Figure 2). The
majority (n=38) of group design studies were random-
ized controlled trials (i.e., experimental group designs),
although authors also employed quasi-experimental
designs in 10 studies.
The majority of the efficacy research in this
review was from SCD studies. Researchers employed SCD
in 408 articles. Multiple baseline designs were used most
frequently (n=183), although withdrawal of treatment
(n=79) and multiple probe design (n=52) also were RCT = Randomized controlled trial
QED = Quasi-experimental design
utilized in a substantial number of articles. In addition, ABAB = Withdrawal of treatment
researchers sometimes employed a combination of de- MB = Multiple baseline
MP = Multiple probe
signs, such as a withdrawal of treatment embedded in a CC = Changing criterion
AT = Alternating treatment
multiple baseline design, which was classified as a mixed
design (n=57).
Table 5. Nature of Literature Base Participants
Participants Table 5 contains the number of studies in which a participant
Diagnosis* (n)
descriptor or co-occurring condition was identified by authors; this
Autism 382
list of descriptors is not mutually exclusive (i.e., one study could
PDD/PDD-NOS 64
Autism Spectrum Disorder 56
have multiple descriptors). In the majority of studies, authors de-
Asperger Syndrome/HFA 40 scribed participants as having autism, which was usually confirmed
Co-occurring Condition* by a formal diagnosis. Other terms, which under DSM 5 would be
No co-occurring conditions reported 283 classified as ASD, were also used to describe participants (i.e.,
Intellectual disability 116 PDD/PDD-NOS, Asperger/High Functioning Autism, and actually
Speech/language impairment 21
ASD). Co-occurring conditions were identified in a substantial
Sensory impairment 14
minority (37.9%) of studies. The co-occurring condition descriptor
Epilepsy/seizure disorder 14
ADHD 11 identified most frequently was intellectual disability (25.4% of all
Physical disability 8 studies).
Genetic syndrome 6 The majority of the participants in studies were children
Learning disability 5 between the ages of 6 and 11 years, with preschool-aged children
Developmental delay 5
(35 years) also participating in a large proportion of studies (see
Mental Illness 3
Figure 3). Relatively fewer studies included children below three
Other (i.e., neurological disorder, 16
hyperthyroidism, Tourette syndrome, years of age (i.e., in early intervention). While a substantial minor-
otitis media)
ity of studies included participants above 12 years of age, this
*Studies may have reported more than one diagnosis and/or
co-occurring condition. number declined as the ages increased.
PDD/PDD-NOS = Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Pervasive
Development Disorder Not Otherwise Specified
HFA = High Functioning Autism Outcomes
ADHD = Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder
Although studies in the literature incorporated a wide range of
outcomes, research focused primarily on outcomes associated with
the core symptoms of ASD: social, communication, and challenging
behaviors (Table 6). Researchers focused on
Figure 3. Ages of Participants in Studies
communication and social outcomes most
frequently, followed closely by challenging
behaviors. Play and joint attention were also
reported in a considerable number of stud-
ies, perhaps reflecting the large representa-
tion in the literature of studies with pre-
school children. However, school readiness
and pre-academic/academic outcomes also
appeared in a substantial number of studies, Table 6. Outcomes Identified In Studies
perhaps reflecting the elementary school Studies
Outcomes related to (n)
age range of participants in many studies.
Social
Outcomes of concern in the adolescent years, 165
Skills needed to interact with others
such as vocational skills and mental health, Communication
182
Ability to express wants, needs, choices, feelings, or ideas
appeared infrequently in studies.
Challenging/Interfering Behaviors
Decreasing or eliminating behaviors that interfere with the individuals 158
Evidence-Based Practices ability to learn
Twenty-seven practices met the criteria Joint Attention
39
Behaviors needed for sharing interests and/or experiences
for being evidence-based. These practices Play
77
with their definitions appear in Table 7. Use of toys or leisure materials
Also, Appendix 2 contains a fact sheet for Cognitive

Performance on measures of intelligence, executive function, problem
15
each intervention, with the definition of the solving, information processing, reasoning, theory of mind, memory,
creativity, or attention
intervention, the type of outcomes it has
School Readiness Skills
generated, the age range of participants, and 67
Performance during a task that is not directly related to task content
citations for the specific articles that provide Pre-Academic/Academic
58
Performance on tasks typically taught and used in school settings
the evidence for the efficacy of the practice.
Motor
The evidence-based practices consist of Movement or motion, including both fine and gross motor skills, or 18
related to sensory system/sensory functioning
interventions that are fundamental applied
Adaptive/Self-Help
behavior analysis techniques (e.g., reinforce- 55
Independent living skills and personal care skills
ment, extinction, prompting), assessment Vocational
Employment or employment preparation or relate to technical skills 12
and analytic techniques that are the basis required for a specific job
for intervention (e.g., functional behavior Mental Health
1
Emotional well-being
assessment, task analysis), and combinations
of primarily behavioral practices used in a
routine and systematic way that fit together as a replicable procedure (e.g., functional communica-
tion training, pivotal response training). Also, the process through which an intervention is delivered
defines some practices (e.g., parent-implemented interventions, technology-aided interventions).
The number of studies identified in support of each practice also appears in Table 7. As
noted, SCD was the predominant design methodology employed, and some practices had very
strong support in terms of the number of studies that documented their efficacy (e.g., anteced-
ent-based intervention, differential reinforcement, prompting, reinforcement, video modeling).
Other practices had strong support from studies using either SCD or group design methodologies
(e.g., parent-implemented interventions, social narratives, social skills training, technology-aided
instruction and intervention, visual supports). No practices were exclusively supported through
group design methodologies.
Table 7. Working Definitions for EBPs
Empirical Support
Single
Evidence-Based Group Case
Practice Definition (n) (n)
Antecedent-based Arrangement of events or circumstances that precede the occurrence of an interfering behav-
0 32
intervention (ABI) ior and designed to lead to the reduction of the behavior.
Cognitive behavioral Instruction on management or control of cognitive processes that lead to changes in overt
3 1
intervention (CBI) behavior.
Provision of positive/desirable consequences for behaviors or their absence that reduce
Differential reinforcement the occurrence of an undesirable behavior. Reinforcement provided: a) when the learner is
of Alternative, engaging in a specific desired behavior other than the inappropriate behavior (DRA), b) when
0 26
Incompatible, or the learner is engaging in a behavior that is physically impossible to do while exhibiting
Other Behavior (DRA/I/O) the inappropriate behavior (DRI), or c) when the learner is not engaging in the interfering
behavior (DRO).
Instructional process usually involving one teacher/service provider and one student/client
Discrete trial teaching and designed to teach appropriate behavior or skills. Instruction usually involves massed trials.
0 13
(DTT) Each trial consists of the teachers instruction/presentation, the childs response, a carefully
planned consequence, and a pause prior to presenting the next instruction.
Increase in physical exertion as a means of reducing problem behaviors or increasing appropri-
Exercise (ECE) 3 3
ate behavior.
Withdrawal or removal of reinforcers of interfering behavior in order to reduce the occurrence
of that behavior. Although sometimes used as a single intervention practice, extinction often
Extinction (EXT) 0 11
occurs in combination with functional behavior assessment, functional communication train-
ing, and differential reinforcement.
Systematic collection of information about an interfering behavior designed to identify
Functional behavior functional contingencies that support the behavior. FBA consists of describing the interfering
0 10
assessment (FBA) or problem behavior, identifying antecedent or consequent events that control the behavior,
developing a hypothesis of the function of the behavior, and/or testing the hypothesis.
Replacement of interfering behavior that has a communication function with more appropri-
Functional communication
ate communication that accomplishes the same function. FCT usually includes FBA, DRA, and/ 0 12
training (FCT)
or EX.
Demonstration of a desired target behavior that results in imitation of the behavior by the
Modeling (MD) learner and that leads to the acquisition of the imitated behavior. This EBP is often combined 1 4
with other strategies such as prompting and reinforcement.
Intervention strategies that occur within the typical setting/activities/routines in which the
learner participates. Teachers/service providers establish the learners interest in a learning
Naturalistic intervention
event through arrangement of the setting/activity/routine, provide necessary support for the 0 10
(NI)
learner to engage in the targeted behavior, elaborate on the behavior when it occurs, and/or
arrange natural consequences for the targeted behavior or skills.
Parents provide individualized intervention to their child to improve/increase a wide variety
Parent-implemented
of skills and/or to reduce interfering behaviors. Parents learn to deliver interventions in their 8 12
intervention (PII)
home and/or community through a structured parent training program.
Typically developing peers interact with and/or help children and youth with ASD to acquire
new behavior, communication, and social skills by increasing social and learning opportunities
Peer-mediated instruction
within natural environments. Teachers/service providers systematically teach peers strategies 0 15
and intervention (PMII)
for engaging children and youth with ASD in positive and extended social interactions in both
teacher-directed and learner-initiated activities.
Empirical Support
Single
Learners are initially taught to give a picture of a desired item to a communicative partner in
Picture Exchange
exchange for the desired item. PECS consists of six phases which are: (1) how to commu-
Communication System 2 4
nicate, (2) distance and persistence, (3) picture discrimination, (4) sentence structure, (5)
(PECS)
responsive requesting, and (6) commenting.
Pivotal learning variables (i.e., motivation, responding to multiple cues, self-management,
Pivotal response training
and self-initiations) guide intervention practices that are implemented in settings that build 1 7
(PRT)
on learner interests and initiative.
Verbal, gestural, or physical assistance given to learners to assist them in acquiring or engag-
Prompting (PP) ing in a targeted behavior or skill. Prompts are generally given by an adult or peer before or as 1 32
a learner attempts to use a skill.
An event, activity, or other circumstance occurring after a learner engages in a desired behav-
Reinforcement (R+) 0 43
ior that leads to the increased occurrence of the behavior in the future.
Introduction of a prompt, comment, or other distracters when an interfering behavior is occur-
Response interruption/
ring that is designed to divert the learners attention away from the interfering behavior and 0 10
redirection (RIR)
results in its reduction.
A verbal and/or written description about a specific skill or situation that serves as a model
Scripting (SC) for the learner. Scripts are usually practiced repeatedly before the skill is used in the actual 1 8
situation.
Instruction focusing on learners discriminating between appropriate and inappropriate behav-
Self-management (SM) iors, accurately monitoring and recording their own behaviors, and rewarding themselves for 0 10
behaving appropriately.
Narratives that describe social situations in some detail by highlighting relevant cues and
Social narratives (SN) offering examples of appropriate responding. Social narratives are individualized according to 0 17
learner needs and typically are quite short, perhaps including pictures or other visual aids.
Group or individual instruction designed to teach learners with autism spectrum disorders
(ASD) ways to appropriately interact with peers, adults, and other individuals. Most social
Social skills training (SST) skill meetings include instruction on basic concepts, role-playing or practice, and feedback to 7 8
help learners with ASD acquire and practice communication, play, or social skills to promote
positive interactions with peers.
Small group activities characterized by their occurrences in a defined area and with a defined
Structured play group
activity, the specific selection of typically developing peers to be in the group, a clear delinea-
(SPG) 2 2
tion of theme and roles by adult leading, prompting, or scaffolding as needed to support
students performance related to the goals of the activity.
A process in which an activity or behavior is divided into small, manageable steps in order
Task analysis (TA) to assess and teach the skill. Other practices, such as reinforcement, video modeling, or time 0 8
delay, are often used to facilitate acquisition of the smaller steps.
Instruction or interventions in which technology is the central feature supporting the acquisi-
Technology-aided tion of a goal for the learner. Technology is defined as any electronic item/ equipment/
instruction and application/or virtual network that is used intentionally to increase/maintain, and/or improve 9 11
intervention (TAII) daily living, work/productivity, and recreation/leisure capabilities of adolescents with autism
spectrum disorders (Odom, Thompson, et al., 2013).
Empirical Support
Single
In a setting or activity in which a learner should engage in a behavior or skill, a brief delay
occurs between the opportunity to use the skill and any additional instructions or prompts.
Time delay (TD) 0 12
The purpose of the time delay is to allow the learner to respond without having to receive a
prompt and thus focuses on fading the use of prompts during instructional activities.
A visual model of the targeted behavior or skill (typically in the behavior, communication,
Video modeling (VM) play, or social domains), provided via video recording and display equipment to assist learning 1 31
in or engaging in a desired behavior or skill.
Any visual display that supports the learner engaging in a desired behavior or skills indepen-
dent of prompts. Examples of visual supports include pictures, written words, objects within
Visual support (VS) 0 18
the environment, arrangement of the environment or visual boundaries, schedules, maps,
labels, organization systems, and timelines.
In Table 8, we identify for each practice the outcomes produced by the studies identified
and reviewed. Most EBPs produced outcomes across multiple developmental and skill areas.
The range of outcome areas was between three and 11. EBPs with the most dispersed (across
areas) outcomes were prompting, reinforcement, technology, time delay, and video modeling
(i.e., all with outcomes in at least 10 areas). EBPs with outcomes in the fewest areas were Picture
Exchange Communication System (i.e., three outcome areas), pivotal response training (i.e., 3
outcomes), exercise (i.e., four outcomes), functional behavior assessment (i.e., five outcomes),
and social skills training (i.e., five outcomes). It is important to note that the number of outcomes
improved is not associated with the potency of the intervention. This table reflects the limited
number of interventions that have been directed to vocational and mental health outcomes.
Outcomes are also analyzed by age of the participants. The table reflects the point made
previously that much of the research has been conducted with children (age <15 years) rather
than adolescents and young adults. Some EBPs and outcomes were logically associated with the
young age range and were represented in that way in the data. For example, naturalistic inter-
vention and parent-implemented intervention are EBPs that are often used with young children
with ASD and produced effects for young children across outcome areas. However, many EBPs
extended across age ranges and outcomes. For example, technology-aided instruction and inter-
vention produced outcomes across a variety of areas and ages.
Table 8. Matrix of Evidence-Based Practices by Outcome and Age (years)
Communi- Joint School Mental
Social cation Behavior Attention Play Cognitive Readiness Academic Motor Adaptive Vocational Health
0-5
6-14
15-22
0-5
6-14
15-22
0-5
6-14
15-22
0-5
6-14
15-22
0-5
6-14
15-22
0-5
6-14
15-22
0-5
6-14
15-22
0-5
6-14
15-22
0-5
6-14
15-22
0-5
6-14
15-22
0-5
6-14
15-22
0-5
6-14
15-22
EBP
ABI
CBI
DRA/I/O
DTT
ECE
EXT
FBA
FCT
MD
NI
PII
PMII
PECS
PRT
PP
R+
RIR
SC
Evidence-Based Practices for Children, Youth, and Young Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder
SM
SN
SST
SPG
TA
TAII
TD
VM
VS
23
A shaded box represents that at least one study meeting criteria included participants in the given age group and reported improvement on a given outcome
Table 9. Idiosyncratic Behavioral Other Practices with Some Support
Intervention Packages and EBP Components
Some practices had empirical support from the research
Study EBPs Employed
literature, but they were not identified as EBPs. In some
Cihak (2007) DTT, TD
studies, researchers combined practices into behavioral
DeQuinzio, Townsend, & Poulson (2008) PP, R+, TA
packages to address special intervention goals, but the
Ganz, Flores, & Lashley (2011) DR, MD
combination of practices was idiosyncratic. In other cases,
Gena (2006) PP, R+
an intervention practice did not have the required number
Gena, Krantz, McClannahan, & Poulson (1996) DTT, MD, PP, R+
of studies to meet the EBP criteria or there were character-
Kaplan-Reimer, Sidener, Reeve, & Sidener (2011) PP, R+, TA
istics about the studies (i.e., all conducted by one research
Kuhn, Hardesty, & Sweeney (2009) ABI, EXT, FCT
group) that prevented their inclusion. All are described in
Marcus, Sinnott, Bradley, & Grey (2010) DR, PP
this section.
Matson, Taras, Sevin, Love, & Fridley (1990) MD, PP, R+, TA
Pelios, MacDuff, & Axelrod (2003) PP, R+
Idiosyncratic Behavioral Intervention Packages
Post & Kirkpatrick (2004) NI, PP
In the studies categorized as behavioral packages, re-
Strain, Wilson, & Dunlap (2011) ABI, DR, FBA
searchers selected combinations of EBPs and other
Williams, Prez-Gonzlez, & Vogt (2003) MD, PP, R+
practices to create interventions to address participants
individual and unique goals. These behavioral packages
were only classified as EBPs when procedural combinations were replicated across studies (e.g.,
PRT, FCT). The behavior package studies appear in Table 9 along with the EBPs they incorporated
into their interventions. An example of this combination is the study by Strain, Wilson, and Dun-
lap (2011) in which the authors used functional behavior assessment, antecedent intervention,
and differential reinforcement of alternative behavior to address the problem behaviors of three
children with ASD.
Other Practices with Empirical Support

Some focused intervention practices had empirical support from the literature but did not meet
the methodological criteria established for this review. The reasons for their exclusion were that
1) there was an insufficient number of studies documenting efficacy, or 2) there was a sufficient
number of acceptable studies but the studies were conducted by only one research group, or 3)
there were a sufficient number of SCD studies but there were not a sufficient number of total
participants across studies (i.e., 20 or more).
The authors caution the reader here, and again in the discussion section (i.e., this caution
bears repeating), to be careful in interpreting the findings of Table 10. The empirical support is
not equivalent across practices. Some interventions have support from multiple studies dem-
onstrating efficacy. Behavioral momentum interventions, direct instruction, independent work
systems, joint attention and symbolic play instruction, music therapy, and reciprocal imitation
training are examples of such interventions, which will be discussed in the next chapter. Inter-
ventions with only one study providing support should be treated with the most caution, which is
also discussed in the next chapter.
Table 10. Other Focused Intervention Practices with Some Support

Practice Description Evidence Exclusion
Aided Language Use of several augmentative and alternative communication Drager et al. (2006) Insufficient
Modeling strategies (e.g., pointing with finger, sequential pointing, use evidence
of communication symbol and vocalization together)
Auditory Integration Systematic exposure to modulated tones resulting in changes Edelson et al. (1999) Insufficient
Training in parent reported problem behavior evidence
Behavioral Momentum Organization of behavior expectations in a sequence in which Banda & Kubina (2006) Insufficient
Intervention low probability/preference behaviors are embedded in a series Davis, Brady, Hamilton, McEvoy & number of
of high probability/preference behaviors to increase the occur- Williams (1994) total
rence of the low probability/preference behaviors Davis, Brady, Williams, & Hamilton participants
(1992)
Ducharme, Lucas, & Pontes (1994)
Houlihan, Jacobson, & Brandon (1994)
Jung, Sainato, & Davis (2008)
Patel et al. (2007)
Riviere, Becquet, Peltret, Facon, &
Darcheville (2011)
Romano & Roll (2000)
Collaborative Coaching Systematic consultation across years to promote achievement Ruble, Dalrymple, & McGrew (2010) Insufficient
of IEP goals evidence
Cooperative Academic learning tasks organized around joint activities and Dugan et al. (1995) Insufficient
Learning Groups goals evidence
Direct Instruction Instructional package involving student choral responses, Flores & Ganz (2007) Only one
explicit signal to cue student responses, correction procedures Ganz & Flores (2009) research group
for incorrect or non-responses, modeling correct responses,
independent student responses
Exposure Increasing (for accelerating behaviors) or decreasing (for Ellis, Alai-Rosales, Glenn, Rosales- Insufficient
decelerating behaviors) the stimulus intensity or conditions to Ruiz, & Greenspoon (2006) evidence
promote the occurrence of the desired response Shabani & Fisher (2006)
Wood, Wolery, & Kaiser (2009)
Handwriting Multisensory activities promoting fine motor and writing skills Carlson, McLaughlin, Derby, & Blecher Insufficient
Without Tears (2009) evidence
Independent Instructional process that includes visually and spatial orga- Bennett, Reichow, & Wolery (2011) Insufficient
Work Systems nized location, previously mastered work, clear specification Hume & Odom (2007) evidence
of task(s), signal when work is finished, instructions for next Mavropoulou, Papadopoulou, &
activity Kakana (2011)
Practice Description Evidence Exclusion
Joint A combination of DTT and NI were employed to promote joint Gulsrud, Kasari, Freeman, & Paparella Only one
Attention-Symbolic attention and symbolic play (2007) research group
Play Instruction Kasari, Freeman, & Paparella (2006)
Kasari, Paparella, Freeman, & Jahromi
(2008)
Music Intensity Different levels of music volume used to affect vocal stereotypy Lanovaz, Sladeczek, & Rapp (2011) Insufficient
evidence
Music Therapy Songs and music used as a medium through which students Kern & Aldridge (2006) Only one
goals may be addressed Kern, Wakeford, & Aldridge (2007) research group
Kern, Wolery, & Aldridge (2007)
Reciprocal Imitation Therapist or teacher repeats the actions, vocalizations, or other Ingersoll (2010) Only one
Training behaviors of the student to promote students imitation and Ingersoll (2012) research group
other goals Ingersoll & Lalonde (2010)
Ingersoll, Lewis, & Kroman (2007)
Removal of Restraints Gradual removal of restraints involving application of pressure Jennett, Hagopian, & Beaulieu (2011) Insufficient
to arm, shadowing evidence
Schema-Based Cognitive strategy for establishing mental representations to Rockwell, Griffin, & Jones (2011) Insufficient
Strategy Instruction promote addition and subtraction evidence
Self-Regulated Strategy Instructional package involving explanation of strategy and Delano (2007) Insufficient
Development Writing self-management to teach writing skills evidence
Intervention
Sensory Diet Sensory based activities integrated into child routines to meet Fazlolu & Baran (2008) Insufficient
sensory needs evidence
Sensory Integration and Therapeutic activities characterized by enhanced sensation, Pfeiffer, Koenig, Kinnealey, Sheppard, Insufficient
Fine Motor Intervention especially tactile, vestibular, and proprioceptive, active par- & Henderson (2011) evidence
ticipation and adaptive interaction paired with individual fine
motor instruction from OT
Sentence-Combining Instructional package including teacher modeling, student Rousseau, Krantz, Poulson, Kitson, & Insufficient
Technique practice, and worksheet to increase adjective use in writing McClannahan (1994) evidence
Test Taking Strategy Instructional package involving modeling, mnemonic devices, Songlee, Miller, Tincani, Sileo, & Insufficient
Instruction verbal practice sessions, controlled practice sessions, advanced Perkins (2008) evidence
practice sessions
Theory of Mind Training Structured training and practice of using theory of mind skills Begeer, et al. (2011) Insufficient
that includes a parent component evidence
Toilet Training Modification of toilet training program developed by Arin and LeBlanc, Carr, Crossett, Bennett, & Insufficient
Fox (1971) Detweiler (2005) evidence
Touch-Point Instruction Tactile and number line materials used to introduce math and Cihak & Foust (2008) Insufficient
numeracy concepts Fletcher, Boon, & Cihak (2010) evidence
Touch Therapy Systematic touching or massage Field, et al. (1997) Insufficient

evidence
Chapter 4
Discussion
T
he current review updates and extends the work on evidence-based, focused
intervention practices begun with an initial review completed in 2007 (Odom, Collet-
Klingenberg, et al., 2010). In this chapter, we discuss the 27 EBPs identified in the
current review and describe the differences between EBPs in the current and previous
review. We examine the practice of combining EBPs into behavioral intervention packages in
idiosyncratic ways that addresses specific participant outcomes and also describe interventions
with some, but insufficient, evidence to be identified as an EBP. As with any review, it is important
to identify limitations, which we acknowledge, and we also propose implications of the results of
this review for practice and future research.
Evidence-Based Practices
In this review, 27 focused intervention practices meet the evidence-based criteria, as compared
to 24 practices identified in the previous review (see Table 11). The current set includes six new
EBP categories. Five of these categories, cognitive behavior interventions, exercise, modeling,
scripting, and structured play groups are entirely new since the last review. They were sup-
ported by more recent research (19972011) in combination with studies published during the
1990-97 time period. The new technology-aided instruction and intervention practice reflects
an expansion of the definition of technology interventions for students with ASD, which resulted
in the previous categories of computer aided instruction and speech generating devices/VOCA
being subsumed under this classification. In addition, more and different uses of technology
have emerged (e.g., use of smart phone and tablet technology). Structured work systems, in the
original list of EBPs, was not included in the current set of EBPs because the new methodological
criteria eliminated some studies. However, the empirical support underlying structured work sys-
tems is highlighted in the list of practices noted as Other Focused Intervention Practices Having
Some Support, to be discussed in a subsequent section.
Table 11. Focused Intervention Practices from Previous and Current Review.
Previous Review: Current Review:
Evidence-Based Practices from 19972007 Evidence-Based Practices from 19902011 Reason for Change
Antecedent-Based Interventions Antecedent-Based Interventions
Cognitive Behavior Intervention More accumulated evidence
Computer Aided Instruction Expanded conceptualization (see
Technology-Aided Instruction and
Intervention)
Differential Reinforcement of Other Behaviors Differential Reinforcement of Other Behaviors
Discrete Trial Teaching Discrete Trial Teaching
Exercise More accumulated evidence
Extinction Extinction
Functional Behavior Assessment Functional Behavior Assessment
Functional Communication Training Functional Communication Training
Modeling More accumulated evidence
Naturalistic Intervention Naturalistic Intervention
Parent-Implemented Intervention Parent-Implemented Intervention
PECS PECS
Peer-Mediated Instruction and Intervention Peer-Mediated Instruction and Intervention
Pivotal Response Training Pivotal Response Training
Prompting Prompting
Reinforcement Reinforcement
Response Interruption/Redirection Response Interruption/Redirection
Scripting More accumulated evidence
Self-Management Self-Management
Social Narrative Social Narrative
Speech Generating Devices/VOCA Expanded conceptualization (see
Technology-Aided Instruction and
Intervention)
Social Skills Training Social Skills Training
Structured Play Group More accumulated evidence
Structured Work Systems More stringent criteria reduced previous
evidence
Task Analysis Task Analysis
Technology-Aided Instruction and Intervention Expanded conceptualization (incorporat-
ed previous Computer Aided Instruction
and Speech Generating Devices)
Time Delay Time Delay
Video Modeling Video Modeling
Visual Support Visual Support
Strength of Evidence
In this review, there was no attempt to calculate effect size, as would occur in a meta-analysis.
Because the empirical support for interventions is derived from two different methodologies
(i.e., group and SCD), effect size estimates from the two different designs generally have different
meanings. For example, group design meta-analytic procedures usually consist of analyses be-
tween mean performances of groups in different experimental conditions whereas SCD analyses
usually consist of within case comparisons in different experimental conditions. Even if the two
approaches were consistent, researchers in the field have not reached agreement on the best ap-
proach for calculating effect size for SCD (Kratchowill et al., 2013).
The number of studies that support a given practice does not reflect the potency of the inter-
vention, but does reflect the weight of the research evidence showing that the intervention is indeed
effective. Fifteen of the EBPs have over 10 studies providing empirical support for the practice, and
among those, the foundational applied behavior analysis techniques (e.g., prompting and reinforce-
ment) have the most support. Antecedent-based interventions, differential reinforcement, and video
modeling also have substantial support with over 25 studies supporting their efficacy. The number
and variety of these replications speak to the relative strength of these EBPs.
Idiosyncratic Behavioral Intervention Package

A clear trend in the set of studies found in this review was the authors selection of EBPs, most
often applied behavior analysis techniques, that they used in combination to address a specific
behavior problem or goal for the participant. For example, to teach two students with ASD recre-
ational rock climbing skills, Kaplan-Reimer et al. (2011) employed stimulus fading (i.e., a form of
antecedent-based intervention), errorless learning (i.e., a form of prompting), and positive rein-
forcement to create a behavioral intervention package. Other idiosyncratic behavioral interven-
tion packages addressed problem behaviors (Strain et al., 2011). The idiosyncratic behavioral in-
tervention packages were not classified as EBPs in this review, although the packages themselves
were made up of EBPs. The rationale for not qualifying this group as an EBP is that the practices
themselves are substantially different from one another, and none of the individual packages was
replicated in subsequent studies to demonstrate that the package was other than applicable to the
specific circumstances in which it was employed. These packages do demonstrate, however, the
utility of the EBPs in addressing individual behavioral needs of children and youth with ASD.
Other Practices with Empirical Support

Some focused intervention practices with well-defined procedures were detected by this lit-
erature review but were not included as EBPs because they did not meet one or more of the
specific criteria. A common reason for not meeting criteria was insufficient numbers of studies
documenting efficacy. For example, in Table 10, 16 practices were identified that had only one
acceptable study supporting its efficacy, which is quite limited support. Other practices did have
multiple studies but fell below the minimum number of studies required. For example, the ef-
ficacy of the structured work system intervention is documented by multiple studies (see Table
10) and was included as an EBP in the previous EBP review. However, with the methodological
evaluation employed in this review, only three SCD studies met the criteria, which was less than
the five SCD studies needed to be classified as an EBP. Similarly, music therapy was supported by
three SCD studies, which was below the number needed for qualification as an EBP. One practice,
behavioral momentum interventions, did have support from nine SCD studies; however, the total
number of participants across the studies (16) did not meet the EBP qualification criteria (i.e.,
total of at least 20 participants across the SCD studies).
Other practices were also supported by multiple demonstrations of efficacy, but all the
studies were conducted by one research group (i.e., efficacy needs to be replicated by more than
one research group). The reciprocal imitation training (RIT) approach developed by Ingersoll and
colleagues had a substantial and impressive set of studies documenting efficacy. For RIT, there were
a sufficient number and variety of studies to be classified as an EBP, but all studies were conducted
by the same research group. Similarly, the joint attention and symbolic play instruction practice has
been studied extensively by Kasari and colleagues, but at the time of this review, the practice had
not been replicated in an acceptable study by another research group.
A number of researchers designed interventions to promote academic outcomes, but
because their procedures differed, the studies could not be grouped into a single EBP category.
To promote reading and literacy skills, Ganz and Flores (2009) and Flores and Ganz (2007)
used Corrective Reading Thinking Basics. To teach different writing skills, Rousseau et al. (1994)
used a sentence combining technique; Delano (2007) used an instruction and self-management
strategy; and Carlson et al. (2009) used a multisensory approach. For teaching different math
skills, Cihak and colleagues (Cihak & Foust, 2008; Fletcher et al., 2010) employed touch point in-
struction and Rockwell et al. (2011) designed a schema-based instructional strategy. Test taking
behavior, a particular problem for some children and youth with autism, was promoted through
the use of modeling, mnemonic strategies, and different forms of practice to improve test taking
performance by Songlee et al. (2008). Also, Dugan et al. (1995) employed a cooperative learning
approach to promote engagement in a number of academic activities for children with ASD. This
focus on academic outcomes has emerged primarily in post-2007 and appears to represent a
trend in current and possibly future research.
It is important to repeat the cautionary note mentioned in the previous chapter about the
amount of evidence available to demonstrate the efficacy of these essentially undocumented
interventions. All of these instructional and intervention practices fall below the EBP criteria
established. Some do have substantial supportive evidence (e.g., multiple group or SCD studies),
but the further an intervention practice is from the minimum criterion, the greater scrutiny and
caution practitioners should exercise in their choice of the intervention.
Review Process
The current report updates a previous review of the literature conducted five years ago (Odom,
Collet-Klingenberg, et al., 2010). With this report, we extend the review in several ways. First,
we expand the coverage of the literature from 10 years (1997-2007) in the previous review to
21 years in the current review (1990-2011). As noted, limiting this review to the previous two
decades is consistent with the procedures followed by other research synthesis organizations,
such as the What Works Clearinghouse (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/
wwc_procedures_v3_0_draft_standards_handbook.pdf).
The process followed in this review improved on the previous study evaluation criteria.
First, a national panel of reviewers who were recruited and trained conducted the review of indi-
vidual articles. In the previous review, the evaluations of individual studies were conducted by re-
search staff within the NPDC project group. Second, the items for the article evaluation protocols
were again based on the quality indicators developed by Gersten et al. (2005) for experimental
and quasi-experimental design and Horner et al. (2005) for SCD, but the protocol developer also
incorporated review criteria that has been used by the What Works Clearinghouse and other
current review processes like the National Standards Project (http://www.nationalautismcenter.
org/nsp/). The protocols were pilot tested by reviewers outside of the project evaluation team,
and two national leaders in experimental group design and SCD provided a final review and
feedback. Third, the articles included in the final review went through four screening and review
levels before being incorporated into the final pool that was used to identify EBPs. In addition,
after review categories were formed and supporting articles identified, evaluation team members
conducted a final validity check to make sure the focused intervention procedures described in
the method sections of articles were consistent with the category definitions within which they
had been grouped to demonstrate empirical support. Although a systematic process for evaluat-
ing articles and summarizing empirical support for EBPs was followed in the previous review,
the current review had greater scrutiny of individual articles. We propose that all of these added
features improved the rigorous quality of the review process.
Limitations
As with nearly any review, we acknowledge that some limitations exist for this review. As noted,
the review was only of studies published from 1990-2011. Two limitations exist regarding this
timeframe. First, we acknowledge that we are missing studies that occurred before 1990, although
one might expect early (i.e., pre-1990) studies of important and effective practices to have been
replicated in publications over subsequent years. Second, because of the time required to conduct
a review of a very large database and involve a national set of reviewers, there is a lag between
the end date for a literature review (i.e., 2011) and the date on which the review is published (i.e.,
early 2014). Certainly, studies have been published in the interim that could have moved some of
the other practices into the EBP classification.
The age range of participants in the studies reviewed was from birth to 22, or the
typical school years (i.e., if one counts early intervention). This is important information
for early intervention and service providers for school-age children and youth. The practices
also have implications for older individuals with ASD, but the review falls short of specifical-
ly identifying EBPs for adults with ASD. Also, a major oversight was that we did not collect
demographic information on the gender, race, and ethnicity of the participants of studies.
Such information could have been a useful and important feature of this review. Last, in this
review, we placed the emphasis on identifying the practices that are efficacious. It provides
no information about practices that researchers documented as not having an effect or for
practices that have deleterious effects.
Implications for Practice

The identification of focused intervention practices that have substantial evidence of efficacy
provides the basis for designing comprehensive evidence-supported programs for children and
youth with ASD. The distinction between evidence-based programs and evidence-supported pro-
grams is an important one (Cook & Cook, 2013). Developers of some comprehensive treatment
models, such as the Lovaas Model (McEachin, Smith, & Lovaas, 1993) and the Early Start Denver
Model (Dawson et al., 2010), have conducted randomized efficacy studies that provide empiri-
cal support for their program models, which would qualify them as evidence-based programs
(Odom et al., in press). It is also possible for practitioners to design comprehensive programs for
individual children with ASD in which they employ the EBPs identified in this or other reports.
We have called these technical eclectic programs (Odom et al., 2012). They could be characterized
as evidence-supported programs in that EBPs are integral features of the program model, but the
efficacy of the entire program model has not been validated through a randomized controlled
trial. Given that the evidence-based term has been used loosely in the past, it is important to be
specific about how the EBPs generated by this report fit with the entire movement toward basing
instruction and intervention for children and youth with ASD on intervention science.
For practitioners to design a technical eclectic/evidence-supported program, there must
be a process for linking student goals with EBPs (Cox et al., 2013; Odom et al., 2012). Such a
process begins with the precise identification of individual goals and their statement in an objec-
tive and measureable manner. The content of the goal may be described as generating an
outcome that fits into one of the 12 outcome areas shown as columns in Table 8 (previ-
ous chapter). From the matrix in Table 8, practitioners can identify the EBPs that have the most
produced participant outcomes in the identified area. These could be considered as the important evidence
EBPs that might work with that specific goal. Practitioners should, however, factor in
supporting an EBP
other information in determining the intervention or teaching strategy for individual
students. Other information includes students previous history with the intervention at the individual
approach, teachers comfort with using the approach and previous training, feasibility student level is the
of implementation in the intervention or instructional setting, and family preferences. progress the student
In addition, the most important evidence supporting an EBP at the individual student
makes when the EBP
level is the progress the student makes when the EBP is implemented. This places a
great responsibility on the practitioner to implement the EBP with fidelity, collect data is implemented.
on child/youth performance, and use the data to evaluate the success of the EBP for
meeting the child/youths goal.
Implications for Future Research

This review reveals gaps that exist in current knowledge about focused intervention practices
for children and youth with ASD. The majority of the intervention studies over the last 20 years
have been conducted with preschool-age and elementary school-age children. A clear need for
the field is to expand the intervention literature up the age range to adolescents and young adults
with ASD. This need was reflected in the small number of studies that addressed vocational and
mental health outcomes, which may have greater relevance for adolescents and young adults.
Similarly, fewer studies were identified for infants and toddlers with ASD and their families.
While the evidence for comprehensive treatment programs for toddlers with ASD is expanding
(Odom et al., in press), there is a need for moving forward the research agenda that addresses
focused intervention practices for this age group. Early intervention providers and service
providers for adolescents with ASD who build technical eclectic programs for children and youth
with ASD now have to extrapolate from studies conducted with preschool and elementary-aged
children with ASD. This practice is similar to the concept in psychopharmacology of off-label use
of medications (i.e., those tested with adolescents and adults) for children with ASD. The need for
expanding the age range of intervention research has been identified by major policy initiative
groups, such as the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (2012), and the prospect for
future research in this area is bright.
Because of the demographics of ASD, much of the research has been conducted with boys
and young men with ASD, and less is known about the effects of interventions and outcomes
for girls and young women. In addition, while acknowledging that we did not collect informa-
tion about race/ethnic/cultural diversity and underrepresented groups in this review, it is our
informed opinion (from reading hundreds of studies), that most of the participants in the studies
were either White-Caucasian or their race/ethnicity was not described. Similarly, information
about childrens or their families socioeconomic status is rarely provided in studies. A needed
feature of future intervention research is to include a more diverse set of participants than has
occurred in the past and examine differences in treatment outcomes that may occur. This issue of
diversity incorporates race/ethnicity but extends also to gender and socioeconomic diversity.
Conclusion
The current review conveys the state of the science in intervention practice for children and youth
with ASD as well as the gaps in the science. With regard to the state of the science, as the volume
and theoretical range of the literature has expanded, the number of EBPs has increased. This
bodes well for a field that is searching for an empirical base for its practice and also for children
and youth with ASD and their families, who may expect that advances in intervention science
will lead to better outcomes. The prospect of better outcomes, however, is couched on the need
for translating scientific results into intervention practices that service providers may access and
providing professional development and support for implementing the practices with fidelity.
Fortunately, the emerging field of implementation science may provide the needed guidance for
such a translational process (Fixsen, Blase, Metz, & Van Dyke, 2013) and professional develop-
ment models for teachers and service providers working with children and youth with ASD have
begun to adopt an implementation science approach (Odom, Cox, & Brock, 2013). Such move-
ment, from science to practice is a clear challenge and also an important next step for the field.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).
Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Asperger, H. (1944). Die Autistischen Psychopathen im Kindesalter [Autistic psychopaths in childhood].
Archiv fr Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten (in German), 117, 76-136. doi: 10.1007/BF01837709
Banda, D. R., & Kubina, R. M. (2006). The effects of a high-probability request sequencing technique in
enhancing transition behaviors. Education and Treatment of Children, 29(3), 507.
Begeer, S., Gevers, C., Clifford, P., Verhoeve, M., Kat, K., Hoddenbach, E., & Boer, F. (2011). Theory of mind
training in children with autism: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 41(8), 997-1006. doi: 10.1007/s10803-010-1121-9.
Bennett, K., Reichow, B., & Wolery, M. (2011). Effects of structured teaching on the behavior of young
children with disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 26(3), 143-152.
doi: 10.1177/1088357611405040
Blumberg, S. J., Bramlett, M. D., Kogan, M. D., Schieve, L. A., Jones, J. R., & Lu, M. C. (2013). Changes in
prevalence of parent-reported autism spectrum disorders in school-aged U. S. children: 2007 to
201112. National Health Statistics Reports, 64, 1-12.
Carlson, B., McLaughlin, T., Derby, K. M., & Blecher, J. (2009). Teaching preschool children with autism and
developmental delays to write. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 7(1), 225-238.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Prevalence of autism spectrum disordersAutism and
developmental disabilities. MMWR Surveillance Summary, 61(3), 1-19.
Chambless, D. L., & Hollon, S. D. (1998). Defining empirically supported therapies. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 66, 7-18.
Chambless, D. L., Sanderson, W. C., Shoham, V., Bennett Johnson, S., Pope, K. S., Crits-Christoph, P., & Mc-
Curry, S. (1996). An update on empirically validated therapies. Clinical Psychologist, 49, 5-18.
Cihak, D. F. (2007). Teaching students with autism to read pictures. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders,
1(4), 318-329. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2006.12.002
Cihak, D. F., & Foust, J. L. (2008). Comparing number lines and touch points to teach addition facts to
students with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 23(3), 131-137.
doi: 10.1177/1088357608318950
Cook, B. G., & Cook, S. C. (2013). Unraveling evidence-based practices in special education. Journal of
Special Education, 47, 71-82. doi: 10.1177/0022466911420877
Cox, A. W., Brock, M. E., Odom, S. L., Rogers, S. J., Sullivan, L. H., Tuchman-Ginsberg, L.,Collet-Klingen-
berg, L. (2013). National Professional Development Center on ASD: An emerging national educational
strategy. In P. Doehring (Ed.), Autism services across America (pp. 249-266). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Davis, C. A., Brady, M. P., Hamilton, R., McEvoy, M. A., & Williams, R. E. (1994). Effects of high-probability
requests on the social interactions of young children with severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Be-
havior Analysis, 27, 619-637. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-619
Davis, C. A., Brady, M. P., Williams, R. E., & Hamilton, R. (1992). Effects of high-probability requests on the
acquisition and generalization of responses to requests in young children with behavior disorders.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(4), 905-916. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1992.25-905
Dawson, G., Rogers, S. J., Munson, J., Smith, M., Winter, J., Greenson, J., Varley, J. (2010). Randomized,
controlled trial of an intervention for toddlers with autism: The Early Start Denver Model. Pediatrics,
125, 17-23. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0958
Delano, M. E. (2007). Use of strategy instruction to improve the story writing skills of a student with
Asperger syndrome. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22(4), 252-258.
doi: 10 .1177/10883576070220040701
DeQuinzio, J. A., Townsend, D. B., & Poulson, C. L. (2008). The effects of forward chaining and contingent
social interaction on the acquisition of complex sharing responses by children with autism. Research
in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2(2), 264-275. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2007.06.006
Drager, K. D., Postal, V. J., Carrolus, L., Castellano, M., Gagliano, C., & Glynn, J. (2006). The effect of aided
language modeling on symbol comprehension and production in 2 preschoolers with autism. Ameri-
can Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15(2), 112. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2006/012)
Ducharme, J. M., Lucas, H., & Pontes, E. (1994). Errorless embedding in the reduction of severe maladaptive
behavior during interactive and learning tasks. Behavior Therapy, 25(3), 489-501. doi: 10.1016/S0005-
7894(05)80159-5
Dugan, E., Kamps, D., Leonard, B., Watkins, N., Rheinberger, A., & Stackhaus, J. (1995). Effects of coopera-
tive learning groups during social studies for students with autism and fourth-grade peers. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 28(2), 175-188. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-175
Dykens, E. M., & Lense, M. (2011). Intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorders: A cautionary
note. In D. Amaral, G. Dawson, & D. Geschwind (Eds.), Autism spectrum disorders (pp. 261-269). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Edelson, S. M., Arin, D., Bauman, M., Lukas, S. E., Rudy, J. H., Sholar, M., & Rimland, B. (1999). Auditory
Integration Training a double-blind study of behavioral and electrophysiological effects in people
with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14(2), 73-81.
doi: 10.1177/108835769901400202
Ellis, E. M., Alai-Rosales, S. S., Glenn, S. S., Rosales-Ruiz, J., & Greenspoon, J. (2006). The effects of gradu-
ated exposure, modeling, and contingent social attention on tolerance to skin care products with
two children with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 27(6), 585-598.
doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2005.05.009
Fazlolu, Y., & Baran, G. (2008). A sensory integration therapy program on sensory problems for children
with autism. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 106(2), 415-422. doi: 10.2466/pms.106.2.415-422
Field, T., Lasko, D., Mundy, P., Henteleff, T., Kabat, S., Talpins, S., & Dowling, M. (1997). Brief report: autistic
childrens attentiveness and responsivity improve after touch therapy. Journal of Autism and Develop-
mental Disorders, 27(3), 333-338. doi: 10.1023/A:1025858600220
Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-based pro-
grams. Exceptional Children, 79, 213-232.
Fletcher, D., Boon, R. T., & Cihak, D. F. (2010). Effects of the TOUCHMATH program compared to a number
line strategy to teach addition facts to middle school students with moderate intellectual disabilities.
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45(3), 449-458.
Flores, M. M., & Ganz, J. B. (2007). Effectiveness of direct instruction for teaching statement inference,
use of facts, and analogies to students with developmental disabilities and reading delays. Focus on
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22(4), 244-251. doi: 10.1177/10883576070220040601
Ganz, J. B., & Flores, M. M. (2009). The effectiveness of direct instruction for teaching language to children
with autism spectrum disorders: Identifying materials. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disor-
ders, 39(1), 75-83. doi: 10.1007/s10803-008-0602-6
Ganz, J. B., Flores, M. M., & Lashley, E. E. (2011). Effects of a treatment package on imitated and spontane-
ous verbal requests in children with autism. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental
Disabilities, 46(4), 596.
Gena, A. (2006). The effects of prompting and social reinforcement on establishing social interactions with
peers during the inclusion of four children with autism in preschool. International Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 41(6), 541-554. doi: 10.1080/00207590500492658
Gena, A., Krantz, P. J., McClannahan, L. E., & Poulson, C. L. (1996). Training and generalization of affective
behavior displayed by youth with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(3), 291-304.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-291
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C. R., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality
indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional
Children, 71, 149-164.
Gulsrud, A. C., Kasari, C., Freeman, S., & Paparella, T. (2007). Children with autisms response to novel
stimuli while participating in interventions targeting joint attention or symbolic play skills. Autism,
11(6), 535-546. doi: 10.1177/1362361307083255
Horner, R., Carr, E., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single subject research to
identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165-180.
Houlihan, D., Jacobson, L., & Brandon, P. K. (1994). Replication of a high-probability request sequence with
varied interprompt times in a preschool setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(4), 737-738.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-737
Hume, K., & Odom, S. (2007). Effects of an individual work system on the independent functioning of
students with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(6), 1166-1180.
doi: 10.1007/s10803-006-0260-5
Hume, K. A., & Odom, S. L. (2011). Best practices, policy, and future directions: Behavioral and psychosocial
interventions. In D. Amaral, G. Dawson, & D. Geschwind (Eds.), Autism spectrum disorders (pp. 1295-
1308). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ingersoll, B. (2010). Brief report: Pilot randomized controlled trial of reciprocal imitation training for
teaching elicited and spontaneous imitation to children with autism. Journal of Autism and Develop-
mental Disorders, 40(9), 1154-1160. doi: 10.1007/s10803-010-0966-2
Ingersoll, B. (2012). Brief report: Effect of a focused imitation intervention on social functioning in children
with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(8), 1768-1773.
doi: 10.1007/s10803-011-1423-6
Ingersoll, B., & Lalonde, K. (2010). The impact of object and gesture imitation training on language use in
children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 53(4),
1040-1051. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/09-0043)
Ingersoll, B., Lewis, E., & Kroman, E. (2007). Teaching the imitation and spontaneous use of descriptive
gestures in young children with autism using a naturalistic behavioral intervention. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 37(8), 1446-1456. doi: 10.1007/s10803-006-0221-z
Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee. (2012). IACC strategic plan for autism spectrum disorder
research: 2012 update. Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Interagency
Autism Coordinating Committee website: http://iacc.hhs.gov/strategic-plan/2012/index.shtml.
Jennett, H., Hagopian, L. P., & Beaulieu, L. (2011). Analysis of heart rate and self-injury with and without
restraint in an individual with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(3), 1110-1118.
doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2010.12.007
Jung, S., Sainato, D. M., & Davis, C. A. (2008). Using high-probability request sequences to increase social
interactions in young children with autism. Journal of Early Intervention, 30(3), 163-187.
doi: 10.1177/1053815108317970
Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nervous Child, 2, 217-250.
Kaplan-Reimer, H., Sidener, T. M., Reeve, K. F., & Sidener, D. W. (2011). Using stimulus control procedures to
teach indoor rock climbing to children with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 26(1), 1-22.
doi: 10.1002/bin.315
Kasari, C., Freeman, S., & Paparella, T. (2006). Joint attention and symbolic play in young children with
autism: A randomized controlled intervention study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(6),
611-620. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01567.x
Kasari, C., Paparella, T, Freeman, S. N., & Jahromi, L. (2008). Language outcome in autism: Randomized
comparison of joint attention and play interventions.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76,
125-137. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.76.1.125
Kern, P., & Aldridge, D. (2006). Using embedded music therapy interventions to support outdoor play of
young children with autism in an inclusive community-based child care program. Journal of Music
Therapy, 43(4), 270-294.
Kern, P., Wakeford, L., & Aldridge, D. (2007). Improving the performance of a young child with autism dur-
ing self-care tasks using embedded song interventions: A case study. Music Therapy Perspectives, 25,
43-51.
Kern, P., Wolery, M., & Aldridge, D. (2007). Use of songs to promote independence in morning greeting
routines for young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(7), 1264-
1271. doi: 10.1007/s10803-006-0272-1
Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J. H., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskoff, D. M., & Shadish, W.
R. (2013). Single-case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34,
26-38.
Kratochwill, T. R., & Sheroff, E. S. (2002). Evidence-based practice: Promoting evidence-based interventions
in school psychology. School Psychology Review, 33, 34-48.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publi-
cations.
Kuhn, D. E., Hardesty, S. L., & Sweeney, N. M. (2009). Assessment and treatment of excessive straightening
and destructive behavior in an adolescent diagnosed with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analy-
sis, 42(2), 355-360. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-355
Lanovaz, M. J., Sladeczek, I. E., & Rapp, J. T. (2011). Effects of music on vocal stereotypy in children with
autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(3), 647-651. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-647
LeBlanc, L. A., Carr, J. E., Crossett, S. E., Bennett, C. M., & Detweiler, D. D. (2005). Intensive outpatient behav-
ioral treatment of primary urinary incontinence of children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 20(2), 98-105. doi: 10.1177/10883576050200020601
Marcus, A., Sinnott, B., Bradley, S., & Grey, I. (2010). Treatment of idiopathic toe-walking in children with
autism using GaitSpot auditory speakers and simplified habit reversal. Research in Autism Spectrum
Disorders, 4, 260-267. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2009.09.012
Marcus, L., Schopler, L., & Lord, C. (2000). TEACCH services for preschool children. In J. Handleman & S.
Harris (Eds.), Preschool education programs for children with autism (2nd ed., pp. 215-232). Austin,
TX: PRO-ED.
Matson, J. L., Taras, M. E., Sevin, J. A., Love, S. R., & Fridley, D. (1990). Teaching self-help skills to autis-
tic and mentally retarded children. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 11(4), 361-378. doi:
10.1016/0891-4222(90)90023-2Mavropoulou, S., Papadopoulou, E., & Kakana, D. (2011). Effects of
task organization on the independent play of students with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(7), 913-925. doi: 10.1007/s10803-010-1116-6
McEachin, J. J., Smith, T., & Lovaas, I. O. (1993). Long-term outcome for children with autism who received
early intensive behavioral treatment. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97, 359-372.
Nathan, P. E., & Gorman, J. M. (2007). A guide to treatments that work (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
National Autism Center. (2009). National standards project findings and conclusions. Randolph, MA: Author.
National Research Council. (2001). Educating children with autism. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Odom, S. L., Boyd, B., Hall, L. J., & Hume, K. A. (in press). Comprehensive treatment models for children and
youth with autism spectrum disorders. In F. Volkmar, S. Rogers, R. Paul, & K. Pelphrey (Eds.), Hand-
book of autism and pervasive developmental disorders (4th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Odom, S. L., Boyd, B., Hall, L., & Hume, K. (2010). Evaluation of comprehensive treatment models for indi-
viduals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 425-436.
Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. D., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. (2004). Quality indica-
tors for research in special education and guidelines for evidence-based practices: Executive summary.
Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children Division for Research.
Odom, S. L., Collet-Klingenberg, L., Rogers, S., & Hatton, D. (2010). Evidence-based practices for children
and youth with autism spectrum disorders. Preventing School Failure, 54, 275-282.
Odom, S. L., Cox, A., & Brock, M. (2013). Implementation science, professional development, and autism
spectrum disorders: National Professional Development Center on ASD. Exceptional Children, 79,
233-251.
Odom, S. L., Hume, K., Boyd, B., & Stabel, A. (2012). Moving beyond the intensive behavior therapy vs.
eclectic dichotomy: Evidence-based and individualized program for students with autism. Behavior
Modification, 36(3), 270-297.
Odom, S. L., Thompson, J. L., Boyd, B. L., Dykstra, J., Duda, M. A., Hedges, S., Szidon, K., Smith, L., & Bord, A.
(2013). Technology and secondary education for students with autism spectrum disorders. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Patel, M., Reed, G. K., Piazza, C. C., Mueller, M., Bachmeyer, M. H., & Layer, S. A. (2007). Use of a high-prob-
ability instructional sequence to increase compliance to feeding demands in the absence of escape
extinction. Behavioral Interventions, 22(4), 305-310. doi: 10.1002/bin.251
Pelios, L. V., MacDuff, G. S., & Axelrod, S. (2003). The effects of a treatment package in establishing indepen-
dent academic work skills in children with autism. Education and Treatment of Children, 26(1), 1-21.
Pfeiffer, B. A., Koenig, K., Kinnealey, M., Sheppard, M., & Henderson, L. (2011). Effectiveness of sensory
integration interventions in children with autism spectrum disorders: A pilot study. The American
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65(1), 76-85. doi: 10.5014/ajot.2011.09205
Post, A. R., & Kirkpatrick, M. A. (2004). Toilet training for a young boy with pervasive developmental disor-
der. Behavioral Interventions, 19(1), 45-50. doi: 10.1002/bin.149
Riviere, V., Becquet, M., Peltret, E., Facon, B., & Darcheville, J. C. (2011). Increasing compliance with medical
examination requests directed to children with autism: effects of a high-probability request proce-
dure. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(1), 193-197. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-193
Rockwell, S. B., Griffin, C. C., & Jones, H. A. (2011). Schema-based strategy instruction in mathematics and
the word problem-solving performance of a student with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Develop-
mental Disabilities, 26(2), 87-95. doi: 10.1177/1088357611405039
Rogers, S. J., Hall, T., Osaki, D., Reaven, J., & Herbison, J. (2000). The Denver Model: A comprehensive,
integrated educational approach to young children with autism and their families. In J. Handleman &
S. Harris (Eds.), Preschool education programs for children with autism (2nd ed., pp. 95-135). Austin,
TX: PRO-ED.
Rogers, S. J., & Vismara, L. A. (2008). Evidence-based comprehensive treatments for early autism. Journal of
Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 37, 8-38.
Romano, J. P., & Roll, D. (2000). Expanding the utility of behavioral momentum for youth with
developmental disabilities. Behavioral Interventions, 15(2), 99-111.
doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-078X(200004/06)15:2<99::AID-BIN48>3.0.CO;2-K
Rousseau, M. K., Krantz, P. J., Poulson, C. L., Kitson, M. E., & McClannahan, L. E. (1994). Sentence combining
as a technique for increasing adjective use in writing by students with autism. Research in Develop-
mental Disabilities, 15(1), 19-37. doi: 10.1016/0891-4222(94)90036-1
Ruble, L. A., Dalrymple, N. J., & McGrew, J. H. (2010). The effects of consultation on Individualized Educa-
tion Program outcomes for young children with autism: The collaborative model for promoting com-
petence and success. Journal of Early Intervention, 32(4), 286-301. doi: 10.1177/1053815110382973
Shabani, D. B., & Fisher, W. W. (2006). Stimulus fading and differential reinforcement for the treatment
of needle phobia in a youth with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39(4), 449-452. doi:
10.1901/jaba.2006.30-05
Shadish, W., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for general-
ized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Simpson, R. L. (2005). Evidence-based practices and students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 140-149.
Smith, T. (2013). What is evidence-based behavior analysis? Behavior Analyst, 36, 7-33.
Smith, T., Groen, A. D., & Wynn, J. W. (2000). Randomized trial of intensive early intervention for children
with pervasive developmental disorders. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 105, 269-285.
Songlee, D., Miller, S. P., Tincani, M., Sileo, N. M., & Perkins, P. G. (2008). Effects of test-taking strategy
instruction on high-functioning adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and
Other Developmental Disabilities, 23(4), 217-228. doi: 10.1177/1088357608324714
Sperry, L., Neitzel, J., & Engelhardt-Wells, K. (2010). Peer-mediated instruction and intervention strategies
for students with autism spectrum disorders. Preventing School Failure, 54, 256-264.
Strain, P. S., & Bovey, E. (2011). Randomized, controlled trial of the LEAP model of early intervention for
young children with autism spectrum disorders. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 313,
133-154.
Strain, P. S., & Hoyson, M. (2000). On the need for longitudinal, intensive social skill intervention: LEAP
follow-up outcomes for children with autism as a case-in-point. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 20, 116-122.
Strain, P. S., Wilson, K., & Dunlap, G. (2011). Prevent-teach-reinforce: Addressing problem behaviors of
students with autism in general education classrooms. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 160-165.
Williams, G., Prez-Gonzlez, L. A., & Vogt, K. (2003). The role of specific consequences in the maintenance
of three types of questions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36(3), 285-296.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2003.36-285
Wood, B. K., Wolery, M., & Kaiser, A. P. (2009). Treatment of food selectivity in a young child with autism.
Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 24(3), 169-177.
doi: 10.1177/1088357609338381
Appendix A
Review Protocols
Group Design Quality Indicators
Instructions: Read each item and check the appropriate box.

If you check NO at any time, the article will not be included as evidence for a practice.
Item YES NO
Does the study have experimental and control/comparative groups?
Were appropriate procedures used to increase the likelihood that relevant characteristics of participants in the sample were
comparable across conditions?
Was their evidence for adequate reliability for the key outcome measures? And/or when relevant, was inter-observer reliability
assessed and reported to be at an acceptable level?
Were outcomes for capturing the interventions effect measured at appropriate times (at least pre- and post-test)?
Was the intervention described and specified clearly enough that critical aspects could be understood?
Was the control/comparison condition(s) described?
Were data analysis techniques appropriately linked to key research questions and hypotheses?
Was attrition NOT a significant threat to internal validity?
Does the research report statistically significant effects of the practice for individuals with ASD for at least one outcome variable?
Were the measures of effect attributed to the intervention? (no obvious unaccounted confounding factors)
Single Case Design Quality Indicators
Instructions: Read each item and check the appropriate box.

If you check NO at any time, the article will not be included as evidence for a practice.
Item YES NO
Does the dependent variable align with the research question or purpose of the study?
Was the dependent variable clearly defined such that another person could identify an occurrence or non-occurrence of the
response?
Does the measurement system align with the dependent variable and produce a quantifiable index?
Did a secondary observer collect data on the dependent variable for at least 20% of sessions across conditions?
Was mean interobserver agreement (IOA) 80% or greater OR kappa of .60 or greater?
Is the independent variable described with enough information to allow for a clear understanding about the critical differences
between the baseline and intervention conditions, or were references to other material used if description does not allow for a
clear understanding?
Was the baseline described in a manner that allows for a clear understanding of the differences between the baseline and
intervention conditions?
Are the results displayed in graphical format showing repeated measures for a single case (e.g., behavior, participant, group)
across time?
Do the results demonstrate changes in the dependent variable when the independent variable is manipulated by the
experimenter at three different points in time or across three phase repetitions?
*Alternating treatment designs require at least 4 repetitions of the alternating sequence.
Appendix B
Intervention Fact Sheets
Antecedent-Based Intervention
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Antecedent-based interventions (ABI) include a variety of modifications that are made to the
environment/context in an attempt to change or shape a students behavior. ABI are typically
implemented after conducting a functional behavior assessment which can assist in identifying
both the function of an interfering behavior, along with environmental conditions that may have
become linked to a behavior over time. Once factors in the environment that may be reinforcing
interfering behavior have been identified, ABI are implemented to modify the environment or
activity so that the factor no longer elicits the interfering behavior. Common ABI procedures in-
clude: 1) modifying educational activities, materials, or schedule (e.g., incorporating student in-
terest), 2) incorporating student choice in educational activities/materials, 3) preparing students
ahead of time for upcoming activities (e.g., priming), 4) varying the format, level of difficulty, or
order of instruction during educational activities (e.g., varying high and low demand requests),
5) enriching the environment to provide additional cues or access to additional materials (e.g.,
visual cues, access to sensory stimuli), and 6) modifying prompting and reinforcement schedules
and delivery (e.g., varying access to reinforcement prior to educational activities). ABI strategies
often are used in conjunction with other evidence-based practices such as functional communi-
cation training, extinction, and reinforcement.
Qualifying Evidence
ABI meets evidence-based criteria with 32 single case design studies.
Ages
According to the evidence-based studies, this intervention has been effective for toddlers (0-2
years) to young adults (19-22 years) with ASD.
Outcomes
ABI can be used effectively to address social, communication, behavior, play, school-readiness,
academic, motor, and adaptive skills.
Research Studies Providing Evidence

Adcock, J., & Cuvo, A. J. (2009). Enhancing learning for children with autism spectrum disorders in regular
education by instructional modifications. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3(2), 319-328.
doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2008.07.004
Ahearn, W. H. (2003). Using simultaneous presentation to increase vegetable consumption in a mildly
selective child with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36(3), 361-365.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2003.36-361
Butler, L. R., & Luiselli, J. K. (2007). Escape-maintained problem behavior in a child with autism antecedent
functional analysis and intervention evaluation of noncontingent escape and instructional fading.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9(4), 195-202. doi: 10.1177/10983007070090040201
Cale, S. I., Carr, E. G., Blakeley-Smith, A., & Owen-DeSchryver, J. S. (2009). Context-based assessment and
intervention for problem behavior in children with autism spectrum disorder. Behavior modification,
33(6), 707-742. doi: 10.1177/0145445509340775
Carter, C. M. (2001). Using choice with game play to increase language skills and interactive be-
haviors in children with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 3(3), 131-151. doi:
10.1177/109830070100300302
Conroy, M. A., Asmus, J. M., Sellers, J. A., & Ladwig, C. N. (2005). The use of an antecedent-based interven-
tion to decrease stereotypic behavior in a general education classroom: A case study. Focus on Autism
and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(4), 223-230. doi: 10.1177/10883576050200040401
Dudley, L. L., Johnson, C., & Barnes, R. S. (2002). Decreasing rumination using a starchy food satiation
procedure. Behavioral Interventions, 17(1), 21-29. doi: 10.1002/bin.104
Dunlap, G., & Plienis, A. J. (1991). The influence of task size on the unsupervised task performance of stu-
dents with developmental disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 14(2), 85-95.
Dyer, K., Dunlap, G., & Winterling, V. (1990). Effects of choice making on the serious problem behaviors of
students with severe handicaps. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23(4), 515-524.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.1990.23-515
Ebanks, M. E., & Fisher, W. W. (2003). Altering the timing of academic prompts to treat destructive behavior
maintained by escape. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36(3), 355-359.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2003.36-355
Graff, R. B., & Green, G. (2004). Two methods for teaching simple visual discriminations to learn-
ers with severe disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 25(3), 295-307. doi: 10.1016/j.
ridd.2003.08.002
Hagopian, L. P., & Toole, L. M. (2009). Effects of response blocking and competing stimuli on stereotypic
behavior. Behavioral Interventions, 24(2), 117-125. doi: 10.1002/bin.278
Haley, J. L., Heick, P. F., & Luiselli, J. K. (2010). Use of an antecedent intervention to decrease vocal stereo-
typy of a student with autism in the general education classroom. Child & Family Behavior Therapy,
32(4), 311-321. doi: 10.1080/07317107.2010.515527
Kennedy, C. H. (1994). Manipulating antecedent conditions to alter the stimulus control of problem behav-
ior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(1), 161-170. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-161
Kliebert, M. L., & Tiger, J. H. (2011). Direct and distal effects of noncontingent juice on rumination exhib-
ited by a child with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(4), 955-959.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-955
Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L., Frea, W., & Green-Hopkins, I. (2003). Priming as a method of coordinating edu-
cational services for students with autism. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34(3),
228-235. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2003/019)
Ladd, M. V., Luiselli, J. K., & Baker, L. (2009). Continuous access to competing stimulation as intervention
for self-injurious skin picking in a child with autism. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 31(1), 54-60.
doi: 10.1080/07317100802701400
Mason, S. A., & Newsom, C. D. (1990). The application of sensory change to reduce stereotyped behavior.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 11(3), 257-271. doi: 10.1016/0891-4222(90)90012-W
OConnor, A. S., Prieto, J., Hoffmann, B., DeQuinzio, J. A., & Taylor, B. A. (2011). A stimulus control procedure
to decrease motor and vocal stereotypy. Behavioral Interventions, 26(3), 231-242. doi: 10.1002/bin.335
Piazza, C. C., Hanley, G. P., & Fisher, W. W. (1996). Functional analysis and treatment of cigarette pica. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(4), 437-450. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-437
Rapp, J. T., Vollmer, T. R., Peter, C., Dozier, C. L., & Cotnoir, N. M. (2004). Analysis of response allocation in
individuals with multiple forms of stereotyped behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37(4),
481-501. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2004.37-481
Reinhartsen, D. B., Garfinkle, A. N., & Wolery, M. (2002). Engagement with toys in two-year-old children
with autism: Teacher selection versus child choice. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Dis-
abilities, 27(3), 175-187. doi: 10.2511/rpsd.27.3.175
Rispoli, M. J., OReilly, M. F., Sigafoos, J., Lang, R., Kang, S., Lancioni, G., & Parker, R. (2011). Effects of preses-
sion satiation on challenging behavior and academic engagement for children with autism during
classroom instruction. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46(4), 607-618.
Rispoli, M., OReilly, M., Lang, R., Machalicek, W., Davis, T., Lancioni, G., & Sigafoos, J. (2011). Effects of
motivating operations on problem and academic behavior in classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 44(1), 187-192. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-187
Roane, H. S., Kelly, M. L., & Fisher, W. W. (2003). The effects of noncontingent access to food on the rate of
object mouthing across three settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36(4), 579-582.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2003.36-579
Rosales, R., Worsdell, A., & Trahan, M. (2010). Comparison of methods for varying item presentation dur-
ing noncontingent reinforcement. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4(3), 367-376.
doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2009.10.004
Schreibman, L., Whalen, C., & Stahmer, A. C. (2000). The use of video priming to reduce disruptive transi-
tion behavior in children with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2(1), 3-11.
doi: 10.1177/109830070000200102
Sigafoos, J., Green, V. A., Payne, D., OReilly, M. F., & Lancioni, G. E. (2009). A classroom-based antecedent
intervention reduces obsessive-repetitive behavior in an adolescent with autism. Clinical Case Studies,
8(1), 3-13. doi: 10.1177/1534650108327475
Stichter, J. P., Randolph, J. K., Kay, D., & Gage, N. (2009). The use of structural analysis to develop anteced-
ent-based interventions for students with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
39(6), 883-896. doi: 10.1007/s10803-009-0693-8
Taylor, B. A., Hoch, H., Potter, B., Rodriguez, A., Spinnato, D., & Kalaigian, M. (2005). Manipulating establish-
ing operations to promote initiations toward peers in children with autism. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 26(4), 385-392. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2004.11.003
Tiger, J. H., Fisher, W. W., Toussaint, K. A., & Kodak, T. (2009). Progressing from initially ambiguous
functional analyses: Three case examples. Research in developmental disabilities, 30(5), 910-926. doi:
10.1016/j.ridd.2099.01.005
Walpole, C. W., Roscoe, E. M., & Dube, W. V. (2007). Use of a differential observing response to expand
restricted stimulus control. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(4), 707-712.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2007.707-712
Anticedent Based Intervention Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Hume, K. (2013). Antecedent-based intervention (ABI) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank
Porter Graham Child Development Institute, The National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum
Disorders.
Adapted from:
Neitzel, J. (2009). Overview of antecedent-based interventions. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank
Disorders.
Cognitive Behavioral Intervention
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Cognitive behavioral intervention (CBI) is based on the belief that behavior is mediated by cogni-
tive processes. Learners are taught to examine their own thoughts and emotions, recognize when
negative thoughts and emotions are escalating in intensity, and then use strategies to change their
thinking and behavior. These interventions tend to be used with learners who display problem
behavior related to specific emotions or feelings, such as anger or anxiety. Cognitive behavioral
interventions are often used in conjunction with other evidence-based practices including social
narratives, reinforcement, and parent-implemented intervention.
Qualifying Evidence
CBI meets evidence-based criteria with 3 group design and 1 single case design studies.
Ages
According to the evidence-based studies, this intervention has been effective for elementary
school-age learners (6-11 years) to high school-age learners (15-18 years) with ASD.
Outcomes
CBI can be used effectively to address social, communication, behavior, cognitive, adaptive, and
mental health outcomes.

Drahota, A., Wood, J. J., Sze, K. M., & Van Dyke, M. (2011). Effects of cognitive behavioral therapy on daily
living skills in children with high-functioning autism and concurrent anxiety disorders. Journal of
Singh, N. N., Lancioni, G. E., Manikam, R., Winton, A. S., Singh, A. N., Singh, J., & Singh, A. D. (2011). A
mindfulness-based strategy for self-management of aggressive behavior in adolescents with autism.
Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(3), 1153-1158. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2010.12.012
Sofronoff, K., Attwood, T., & Hinton, S. (2005). A randomised controlled trial of a CBT intervention for
anxiety in children with Asperger syndrome. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(11), 1152-
1160. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.00411.x
Sofronoff, K., Attwood, T., Hinton, S., & Levin, I. (2007). A randomized controlled trial of a cognitive behav-
ioural intervention for anger management in children diagnosed with Asperger syndrome. Journal of
Cognitive Behavioral Intervention Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Brock, M. E. (2013). Cognitive behavioral intervention (CBI) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina,
Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, The National Professional Development Center on Autism
Spectrum Disorders.
Differential Reinforcement of Alternative, Incompatible, or Other Behavior
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Differential reinforcement of alternative, incompatible, or other behavior (DRA/I/O) teaches
new skills and increases behavior by providing positive/desirable consequences for behaviors or
their absence that reduces the occurrence of an undesirable behavior, especially behaviors that
interfere with the learners learning, development, relationships, health and so on (e.g., tantrums,
aggression, self-injury, stereotypic behavior). Through differential reinforcement the learner is re-
inforced for desired behaviors, while inappropriate behaviors are ignored. The learner is provided
reinforcement when: a) the learner is engaging in a specific desired behavior other than the inap-
propriate behavior (DRA), b) the learner is engaging in a behavior that is physically impossible
to do while exhibiting the inappropriate behavior (DRI), or c) the learner is not engaging in the
interfering behavior (DRO). Differential reinforcement is often used with other evidence-based
practices such as prompting to teach the learner behaviors that are more functional or incompat-
ible with interfering behavior, with the overall goal of decreasing that interfering behavior.
Qualifying Evidence
DRA/I/O meets evidence-based criteria with 26 single case design studies.
Ages
According to the evidence-based studies, this intervention has been effective for preschoolers
(3-5 years) to young adults (19-22 years) with ASD.
Outcomes
DRA/I/O can be used effectively to address social, communication, behavior, joint attention, play,
school-readiness, academic, motor, and adaptive skills.

Adelinis, J. D., Piazza, C. C., & Goh, H. L. (2001). Treatment of multiply controlled destructive behavior with
food reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34(1), 97-100. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-97
Bergstrom, R., Tarbox, J., & Gutshall, K. A. (2011). Behavioral intervention for domestic pet mistreatment in
a young child with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(1), 218-221.
doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2010.04.002
Buckley, S. D., & Newchok, D. K. (2005). An evaluation of simultaneous presentation and differential rein-
forcement with response cost to reduce packing. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38(3), 405-409.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2005.71-04
Buckley, S. D., Strunck, P. G., & Newchok, D. K. (2005). A comparison of two multicomponent procedures to
increase food consumption. Behavioral Interventions, 20(2), 139-146. doi: 10.1002/bin.188
Call, N. A., Pabico, R. S., Findley, A. J., & Valentino, A. L. (2011). Differential reinforcement with and without
blocking as treatment for elopement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(4), 903-907.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-903
Charlop, M. H., Kurtz, P. F., & Milstein, J. P. (1992). Too much reinforcement, too little behavior: Assessing
task interspersal procedures in conjunction with different reinforcement schedules with autistic chil-
dren. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(4), 795-808. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1992.25-795
Charlop-Christy, M. H., & Haymes, L. K. (1996). Using obsessions as reinforcers with and without mild
reductive procedures to decrease inappropriate behaviors of children with autism. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 26(5), 527-546. doi: 10.1007/BF02172274
Egan, P. J., Zlomke, L. C., & Bush, B. R. (1993). Utilizing functional assessment, behavioral consultation and
videotape review of treatment to reduce aggression: A case study. Special Services in the Schools, 7(1),
27-37. doi: 10.1300/J008v07n01_02
Hagopian, L. P., Kuhn, D. E., & Strother, G. E. (2009). Targeting social skills deficits in an adolescent with
pervasive developmental disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(4), 907-911. doi:10.1901/
jaba.2009.42-907
Hammond, J. L., Iwata, B. A., Fritz, J. N., & Dempsey, C. M. (2011). Evaluation of fixed momentary DRO
schedules under signaled and unsignaled arrangements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(1),
69-81. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-69
Healey, J. J., Ahearn, W. H., Graff, R. B., & Libby, M. E. (2001). Extended analysis and treatment of self-
injurious behavior. Behavioral Interventions, 16(3), 181-195. doi: 10.1002/bin.91
Kelley, M. E., Shamlian, K., Lomas, J. E., & Pabico, R. S. (2011). Pre-assessment exposure to schedule-
correlated stimuli affects choice responding for tasks. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(2),
527-531. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2010.12.029
Kerth, D. M., Progar, P. R., & Morales, S. (2009). The effects of non-contingent self-restraint on self-injury.
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 22(2), 187-193.
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3148.2008.00487.x
Lee, R., McComas, J. J., & Jawor, J. (2002). The effects of differential and lag reinforcement schedules on
varied verbal responding by individuals with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35(4), 391-
402. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-391
Marcus, B. A., & Vollmer, T. R. (1996). Combining noncontingent reinforcement and differential reinforce-
ment schedules as treatment for aberrant behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(1), 43-51.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-43
Napolitano, D. A., Smith, T., Zarcone, J. R., Goodkin, K., & McAdam, D. B. (2010). Increasing response diver-
sity in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(2), 265-271.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2010.43-265
Newman, B. (2005). Self-management of initiations by students diagnosed with autism. The Analysis of
Verbal Behavior, 21(1), 117-122.
Patel, M. R., Carr, J. E., Kim, C., Robles, A., & Eastridge, D. (2000). Functional analysis of aberrant behavior
maintained by automatic reinforcement: Assessments of specific sensory reinforcers. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 21(5), 393-407. doi: 10.1016/S0891-4222(00)00051-2
Pelios, L. V., MacDuff, G. S., & Axelrod, S. (2003). The effects of a treatment package in establishing indepen-
dent academic work skills in children with autism. Education and Treatment of Children, 26(1), 1-21.
Piazza, C. C., Moes, D. R., & Fisher, W. W. (1996). Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior and de-
mand fading in the treatment of escape-maintained destructive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
Reed, G. K., Ringdahl, J. E., Wacker, D. P., Barretto, A., & Andelman, M. S. (2005). The effects of fixed-time
and contingent schedules of negative reinforcement on compliance and aberrant behavior. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 26(3), 281-295. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2004.01.004
Rozenblat, E., Brown, J. L., Brown, A. K., Reeve, S. A., & Reeve, K. F. (2009). Effects of adjusting DRO sched-
ules on the reduction of stereotypic vocalizations in children with autism. Behavioral Interventions,
24(1), 1-15. doi: 10.1002/bin.270
Shabani, D. B., & Fisher, W. W. (2006). Stimulus fading and differential reinforcement for the treatment of
needle phobia in a youth with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39(4), 449-452.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2006.30-05
Taylor, B. A., Hoch, H., & Weissman, M. (2005). The analysis and treatment of vocal stereotypy in a child
with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 20(4), 239-253. doi: 10.1002/bin.200
Thompson, M. J., McLaughlin, T. F., & Derby, K. M. (2011). The use of differential reinforcement to decrease
the inappropriate verbalizations of a nine-year-old girl with autism. Electronic Journal of Research in
Educational Psychology, 9(1), 183-196.
Tiger, J. H., Fisher, W. W., & Bouxsein, K. J. (2009). Therapist-and self-monitored DRO contingencies as a
treatment for the self-injurious skin picking of a young man with Asperger syndrome. Journal of Ap-
plied Behavior Analysis, 42(2), 315-319. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-315
Differential Reinforcement of Alternative, Incompatible, or Other Behavior Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Kucharczyk, S. (2013). Differential reinforcement of alternative, incompatible, or other behavior (DRA/I/O) fact sheet.
Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, The National
Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Adapted from:
Bogin, J. & Sullivan, L. (2009). Overview of differential reinforcement of other behaviors. Sacramento: University of Cali-
fornia at Davis School of Medicine, M.I.N.D. Institute, The National Professional Development Center on Autism
Spectrum Disorders.
Discrete Trial Teaching
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Discrete trial teaching (DTT) is a one-to-one instructional approach used to teach skills in a
planned, controlled, and systematic manner. DTT is characterized by repeated, or massed, trials
that have a definite beginning and end. Within DTT, the use of antecedents and consequences
is carefully planned and implemented. The instructional trial begins when the adult presents a
clear direction or stimulus, which elicits a target behavior. Positive praise and/or tangible rewards
are used to reinforce desired skills or behaviors. Data collection is an important part of DTT as it
provides teachers/practitioners with information about beginning skill level, progress and chal-
lenges, skill acquisition and maintenance, and generalization of learned skills or behaviors. Other
practices that are used in DTT include task analysis, prompting, time delay, and reinforcement.
QualifyingEvidence
DTT meets evidence-based criteria with 13 single case design studies.
Ages
(3-5 years) to elementary school-age learners (6-11 years) with ASD.
Outcomes
DTT can be used effectively to address social, communication, behavior, joint attention, school-
readiness, academic, adaptive, and vocational skills.
Research Studies Poviding Evidence

Goldsmith, T. R., LeBlanc, L. A., & Sautter, R. A. (2007). Teaching intraverbal behavior to children with
autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1(1), 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2006.07.001
Gould, E., Tarbox, J., OHora, D., Noone, S., & Bergstrom, R. (2011). Teaching children with autism a basic
component skill of perspective-taking. Behavioral Interventions, 26(1), 50-66. doi: 10.1002/bin.320
Jahr, E. (2001). Teaching children with autism to answer novel wh-questions by utilizing a multiple
exemplar strategy. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22(5), 407-423.
doi: 10.1016/S0891-4222(01)00081-6
Jones, E. A., Feeley, K. M., & Takacs, J. (2007). Teaching spontaneous responses to young children with
Kelley, M. E., Shillingsburg, M. A., Castro, M. J., Addison, L. R., & LaRue, R. H. (2007). Further evaluation
of emerging speech in children with developmental disabilities: Training verbal behavior. Journal of
Kodak, T., & Clements, A. (2009). Acquisition of mands and tacts with concurrent echoic training. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(4), 839-843. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-839
Lang, R., Rispoli, M., Sigafoos, J., Lancioni, G., Andrews, A., & Ortega, L. (2011). Effects of language of in-
struction on response accuracy and challenging behavior in a child with autism. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 20(4), 252-259. doi: 10.1007/s10864-011-9130-0
Leaf, J. B., Oppenheim-Leaf, M. L., Dotson, W. H., Johnson, V. A., Courtemanche, A. B., Sheldon, J. B., & Sher-
man, J. A. (2011). Effects of no-no prompting on teaching expressive labeling of facial expressions to
children with and without a pervasive developmental disorder. Education and Training in Autism and
Developmental Disabilities, 46(2), 186-203.
McHugh, L., Bobarnac, A., & Reed, P. (2011). Brief report: Teaching situation-based emotions to children
with autistic spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(10), 1423-1428.
doi: 10.1007/s10803-010-1152-2
Simer, N., & Cuvo, A. J. (2009). Training vision screening behavior to children with developmental disabili-
ties. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3(2), 409-420. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2008.08.007
Summers, J., Tarbox, J., Findel-Pyles, R. S., Wilke, A. E., Bergstrom, R., & Williams, W. L. (2011). Teaching
two household safety skills to children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(1), 629-
632. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2010.07.008
Taubman, M., Brierley, S., Wishner, J., Baker, D., McEachin, J., & Leaf, R. B. (2001). The effectiveness of a
group discrete trial instructional approach for preschoolers with developmental disabilities. Research
in Developmental Disabilities, 22(3), 205-219. doi: 10.1016/S0891-4222(01)00068-3
Wynn, J. W., & Smith, T. (2003). Generalization between receptive and expressive language in young chil-
dren with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 18(4), 245-266. doi: 10.1002/bin.142
Discrete Trial Teaching Fact Sheet suggested citation

Fleury, V. P. (2013). Discrete trial teaching (DTT) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter
Graham Child Development Institute, The National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum
Disorders.
Adapted from:
Bogin, J. (2008). Overview of discrete trial training. Sacramento: University of California at Davis School of Medicine,
M.I.N.D. Institute, The National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Exercise
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Exercise (ECE) is a strategy that involves an increase in physical exertion as a means of reducing
problem behaviors or increasing appropriate behavior while increasing physical fitness and mo-
tor skills. With ECE, learners engage in a fixed period of programmed physical activity on a regu-
lar basis. ECE sessions often begin with warm-up exercises and end with cool-down activities
and may include aerobic activities (e.g., jogging, jumping, swimming), strength training, and/
or stretching that can take place indoors, outdoors, or at a swimming pool for aquatic exercise
programs. ECE is often used in conjunction with prompting, reinforcement, and visual supports.
Qualifying Evidence
ECE meets evidence-based criteria with 3 group design and 3 single case design studies.
Ages
(3-5 years) to middle school-age learners (12-14 years) with ASD.
Outcomes
ECE can be used effectively to address behavior, school-readiness, academic, and motor skills.

Cannella-Malone, H. I., Tullis, C. A., & Kazee, A. R. (2011). Using antecedent exercise to decrease challeng-
ing behavior in boys with developmental disabilities and an emotional disorder. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 13(4), 230-239. doi: 10.1177/109830071140612
Celiberti, D. A., Bobo, H. E., Kelly, K. S., Harris, S. L., & Handleman, J. S. (1997). The differential and tempo-
ral effects of antecedent exercise on the self-stimulatory behavior of a child with autism. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 18(2), 139-150. doi: 10.1016/S0891-4222(96)00032-7
Fragala-Pinkham, M. A., Haley, S. M., & ONeil, M. E. (2011). Group swimming and aquatic exercise pro-
gramme for children with autism spectrum disorders: A pilot study. Developmental Neurorehabilita-
tion, 14(4), 230-241. doi: 10.3109/17518423.2011.575438
Nicholson, H., Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., & Van Heest, J. (2011). The effects of antecedent physical activity on the
academic engagement of children with autism spectrum disorder. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 198-213.
doi: 10.1002/pits
Oriel, K. N., George, C. L., Peckus, R., & Semon, A. (2011). The effects of aerobic exercise on academic
engagement in young children with autism spectrum disorder. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 23(2), 187-
193. doi: 10.1097/PEP.0b013e318218f149
Pan, C. Y. (2011). The efficacy of an aquatic program on physical fitness and aquatic skills in children with
and without autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(1), 657-665.
doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2010.08.001
Exercise Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Cox, A. W. (2013). Exercise (ECE) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child
Development Institute, The National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Extinction
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Extinction (EXT) is a strategy based on applied behavior analysis that is used to reduce or
eliminate a challenging behavior. The extinction procedure relies on accurately identifying the
function of the behavior and the consequences that may be reinforcing its occurrence. The conse-
quence that is believed to reinforce the occurrence of the target challenging behavior is removed
or withdrawn, resulting in a decrease of the target behavior. An initial increase in the challenging
behavior (often called an extinction burst) is common before eventually being extinguished.
Extinction should not be used in isolation. Other practices that are used in combination with
extinction include differential reinforcement and functional behavior assessment.
Qualifying Evidence
EXT meets evidence-based criteria with 11 single case design studies.
Ages
(3-5 years) to high school-age learners (15-18 years) with ASD.
Outcomes
EXT can be used effectively to address communication, behavior, school-readiness, and adaptive
skills.

Banda, D. R., McAfee, J. K., & Hart, S. L. (2009). Decreasing self-injurious behavior in a student with autism
and Tourette syndrome through positive attention and extinction. Child & Family Behavior Therapy,
31(2), 144-156. doi: 10.1080/07317100902910604
Gale, C. M., Eikeseth, S., & Rudrud, E. (2011). Functional assessment and behavioural intervention for eat-
ing difficulties in children with autism: A study conducted in the natural environment using parents
and ABA tutors as therapists. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(10), 1383-1396.
doi: 10.1007/s10803-010-1167-8
Grow, L. L., Kelley, M. E., Roane, H. S., & Shillingsburg, M. A. (2008). Utility of extinction-induced response
variability for the selection of mands. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(1), 15-24.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-15
Hagopian, L. P., Kuhn, S. A. C., Long, E. S., & Rush, K. S. (2005). Schedule thinning following communication
training: Using competing stimuli to enhance tolerance to decrements in reinforcer density. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 177-193. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2005.43-04
sis, 42(2), 355-360. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-355
Lalli, J. S., Casey, S., & Kates, K. (1995). Reducing escape behavior and increasing task completion with
functional communication training, extinction and response chaining. Journal of Applied Behavior
Mace, F. C., Pratt, J. L., Prager, K. L., & Pritchard, D. (2011). An evaluation of three methods of saying no to
avoid an escalating response class hierarchy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(1), 83-94. doi:
10.1901/jaba.2011.44-83
Patel, M. R., Piazza, C. C., Kelly, M. L., Ochsner, C. A., & Santana, C. M. (2001). Using a fading procedure to
increase fluid consumption in a child with feeding problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
34(3), 357-360. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-357
Thompson, R. H., Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., & Kuhn, D. E. (1998). The evaluation and treatment of ag-
gression maintained by attention and automatic reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
31(1), 103-116. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1998.31-103
Valentino, A. L., Shillingsburg, M. A., Call, N. A., Burton, B., & Bowen, C. N. (2011). An investigation of ex-
tinction-induced vocalizations. Behavior Modification, 35, 284-298. doi: 10.1177/0145445511398412
Waters, M. B., Lerman, D. C., & Hovanetz, A. N. (2009). Separate and combined effects of visual schedules
and extinction plus differential reinforcement on problem behavior occasioned by transitions. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(2), 309-313. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-309
Extinction Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Fleury, V. P. (2013). Extinction (EXT) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham
Child Development Institute, The National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Adapted from:
Sullivan, L., & Bogin, J. (2010). Overview of extinction. Sacramento: University of California at Davis School of Medi-
cine, M.I.N.D. Institute, The National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Functional Behavior Assessment
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Functional behavior assessment (FBA) is a systematic way of determining the underlying
communicative function or purpose of a behavior so that an effective intervention plan can be
developed. FBA consists of describing the interfering or problem behavior, identifying anteced-
ent and consequent events that control the behavior, developing a hypothesis of the function of
the behavior, and testing the hypothesis. Data collection is an important part of the FBA process.
FBA is typically used to identify the causes of interfering behaviors such as self-injury, aggression
towards others, or destructive behaviors and is usually followed by the creation and implementa-
tion of a behavior package to address the interfering behavior described.
Qualifying Evidence
FBA meets evidence-based criteria with 10 single case design studies.
Ages
Outcomes
FBA can be used effectively to address communication, behavior, school-readiness, academic, and
adaptive skills.

Blair, K. C., Lee, I., Cho, S., & Dunlap, G. (2011). Positive behavior support through family-school collabora-
tion for young children with autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31, 22-36.
doi: 10.1177/0271121410377510
Blair, K. S. C., Umbreit, J., Dunlap, G., & Jung, G. (2007). Promoting inclusion and peer participation through
assessment-based intervention. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27(3), 134-147.
doi: 10.1177/02711214070270030401
Clarke, S., Worcester, J., Dunlap, G., Murray, M., & Bradley-Klug, K. (2002). Using multiple measures to
evaluate positive behavior support: A case example. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4(3),
131-145. doi: 10.1177/10983007020040030201
Devlin, S., Leader, G., & Healy, O. (2009). Comparison of behavioral intervention and sensory-integration
therapy in the treatment of self-injurious behavior. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3(1), 223-
231. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2008.06.004
Dunlap, G., & Fox, L. (1999). A demonstration of behavioral support for young children with autism. Jour-
nal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1(2), 77-87. doi: 10.1177/109830079900100202
Kodak, T., Fisher, W. W., Clements, A., Paden, A. R., & Dickes, N. R. (2011). Functional assessment of instruc-
tional variables: Linking assessment and treatment. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(3),
1059-1077. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2010.11.012
Lucyshyn, J. M., Albin, R. W., Horner, R. H., Mann, J. C., Mann, J. A., & Wadsworth, G. (2007). Family imple-
mentation of positive behavior support for a child with autism: Longitudinal, single-case, experimen-
tal, and descriptive replication and extension. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 131-150.
doi: 10.1177/10983007070090030201
McComas, J., Hoch, H., Paone, D., & El-Roy, D. (2000). Escape behavior during academic tasks: A prelimi-
nary analysis of idiosyncratic establishing operations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33(4),
479-493. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2000.33-479
OReilly, M. F., Edrisinha, C., Sigafoos, J., Lancioni, G., & Andrews, A. (2006). Isolating the evocative and
abative effects of an establishing operation on challenging behavior. Behavioral Interventions, 21(3),
195-204. doi: 10.1002/bin.215
Roberts-Gwinn, M. M., Luiten, L., Derby, K. M., Johnson, T. A., & Weber, K. (2001). Identification of compet-
ing reinforcers for behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 3(2), 83-87. doi: 10.1177/109830070100300204
Functional Behavior Assessment Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Fettig, A. (2013). Functional behavior assessment (FBA) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank
Disorders.
Adapted from:
Collet-Klingenberg, L. (2008). Overview of functional behavior assessment. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wais-
man Center, The National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Functional Communication Training
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Functional communication training (FCT) is a systematic practice to replace inappropriate
behavior or subtle communicative acts with more appropriate and effective communicative
behaviors or skills. FCT is preceded by an FBA to identify the function of an interfering behavior
followed by teaching an appropriate communication skill that may serve the same purpose for
the learner with ASD. FCT often includes differential reinforcement procedure in which an indi-
vidual is taught an alternative response that results in the same class of reinforcement identified
as maintaining problem behavior. Problem behavior is typically placed on extinction. The distinct
component of FCT is that the alternative response is a recognizable form of communication (e.g.,
a vocalization, manual sign, Picture Exchange Communication System). FCT usually includes
functional behavior assessment, differential reinforcement of alternative behavior, and extinction.
Qualifying Evidence
FCT meets evidence-based criteria with 12 single case design studies.
Ages
Outcomes
FCT can be used effectively to address social, communication, behavior, play, school-readiness,
and adaptive outcomes.

Brown, K. A., Wacker, D. P., Derby, K. M., Peck, S. M., Richman, D. M., Sasso, G. M., ... Harding, J. W. (2000).
Evaluating the effects of functional communication training in the presence and absence of establish-
ing operations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33(1), 53-71. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2000.33-53
Buckley, S. D., & Newchok, D. K. (2005). Differential impact of response effort within a response chain on
use of mands in a student with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 26(1), 77-85. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2004.07.004
Casey, S. D., & Merical, C. L. (2006). The use of functional communication training without additional treat-
ment procedures in an inclusive school setting. Behavioral Disorders, 32(1), 46-54.
Falcomata, T. S., Roane, H. S., Feeney, B. J., & Stephenson, K. M. (2010). Assessment and treatment of elope-
ment maintained by access to stereotypy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(3), 513-517.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2010.43-513
Fisher, W. W., Kuhn, D. E., & Thompson, R. H. (1998). Establishing discriminative control of responding
using functional and alternative reinforcers during functional communication training. Journal of
Gibson, J. L., Pennington, R. C., Stenhoff, D. M., & Hopper, J. S. (2010). Using desktop videoconferencing to
deliver interventions to a preschool student with autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,
29(4), 214-225. doi: 10.1177/0271121409352873
sis, 42(2), 355-360. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-355
Mancil, G. R., Conroy, M. A., Nakao, T., & Alter, P. J. (2006). Functional communication training in the natu-
ral environment: A pilot investigation with a young child with autism spectrum disorder. Education
and Treatment of Children, 29(4), 615-633.
Olive, M. L., Lang, R. B., & Davis, T. N. (2008). An analysis of the effects of functional communication and
a voice output communication aid for a child with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spec-
trum Disorders, 2(2), 223-236. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2007.06.002
Schindler, H. R., & Horner, R. H. (2005). Generalized reduction of problem behavior of young children with
autism: Building trans-situational interventions. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 110(1),
36-47.
Tiger, J. H., Fisher, W. W., Toussaint, K. A., & Kodak, T. (2009). Progressing from initially ambiguous func-
tional analyses: Three case examples. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30(5), 910-926.
doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2099.01.005
Volkert, V. M., Lerman, D. C., Call, N. A., & TrosclairLasserre, N. (2009). An evaluation of resurgence during
treatment with functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(1), 145-
160. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-145
Functional Communication Training Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Fettig, A. (2013). Functional communication training (FCT) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina,
Spectrum Disorders.
Adapted from:
Franzone, E. (2009). Overview of functional communication training (FCT). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wais-
Modeling
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Modeling (MD) involves the demonstration of a desired target behavior that results in imitation
of the behavior by the learner and that leads to the acquisition of the imitated behavior. MD is
often combined with other strategies such as prompting and reinforcement.
Qualifying Evidence
MD meets evidence-based criteria with 1 group design and 4 single case design studies.
Ages
Outcomes
MD can be used effectively to address social, communication, joint attention, play, school-readi-
ness, academic, and vocational skills.

Charlop-Christy, M. H., Le, L., & Freeman, K. A. (2000). A comparison of video modeling with in vivo
modeling for teaching children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30(6),
537-552. doi: 10.1023/A:1005635326276
Landa, R. J., Holman, K. C., ONeill, A. H., & Stuart, E. A. (2011). Intervention targeting development of so-
cially synchronous engagement in toddlers with autism spectrum disorder: A randomized controlled
trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(1), 13-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02288.x
Matson, J. L., Box, M. L., & Francis, K. L. (1992). Treatment of elective mute behavior in two developmen-
tally delayed children using modeling and contingency management. Journal of Behavior Therapy and
Experimental Psychiatry, 23(3), 221-229. doi: 10.1016/0005-7916(92)90039-L
Rigsby-Eldredge, M., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1992). The effects of modeling and praise on self-initiated behav-
ior across settings with two adolescent students with autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical
Disabilities, 4(3), 205-218. doi: 10.1007/BF01046965
Schrandt, J. A., Townsend, D. B., & Poulson, C. L. (2009). Teaching empathy skills to children with autism.
Modeling Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Cox, A. W. (2013) Modeling fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Devel-
opment Institute, The National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Naturalistic Intervention
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Naturalistic intervention (NI) is a collection of practices including environmental arrangement,
interaction techniques, and strategies based on applied behavior analysis principles. These prac-
tices are designed to encourage specific target behaviors based on learners interests by building
more complex skills that are naturally reinforcing and appropriate to the interaction. Natural-
istic intervention occurs within typical settings, activities, and/or routines in which the learner
participates.
Qualifying Evidence
NI meets evidence-based criteria with 10 single case design studies.
Ages
years) to elementary school-age learners (6-11 years) with ASD.
Outcomes
NI can be used effectively to address social, communication, behavior, joint attention, play, and
academic skills.

Hancock, T. B., & Kaiser, A. P. (2002). The effects of trainer-implemented enhanced milieu teaching on the
social communication of children with autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22(1),
39-54. doi: 10.1177/027112140202200104
Ingersoll, B., Dvortcsak, A., Whalen, C., & Sikora, D. (2005). The effects of a developmental, socialPrag-
matic language intervention on rate of expressive language production in young children with autistic
spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(4), 213-222.
doi: 10.1177/10883576050200040301
Koegel, L. K., Carter, C. M., & Koegel, R. L. (2003). Teaching children with autism self-initiations as a pivotal
response. Topics in Language Disorders, 23(2), 134-145. doi: 10.1097/00011363-200304000-00006
Koegel, R. L., Camarata, S., Koegel, L. K., Ben-Tall, A., & Smith, A. E. (1998). Increasing speech intelligibility
in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 28(3), 241-251.
doi: 10.1023/A:1026073522897
Koegel, R. L., Koegel, L. K., & Surratt, A. (1992). Language intervention and disruptive behavior in preschool
children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 22(2), 141-153.
doi: 10.1007/BF01058147
Kohler, F. W., Anthony, L. J., Steighner, S. A., & Hoyson, M. (2001). Teaching social interaction skills in the in-
tegrated preschool an examination of naturalistic tactics. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,
21(2), 93-103. doi: 10.1177/027112140102100203
McGee, G. G., & Daly, T. (2007). Incidental teaching of age-appropriate social phrases to children with
autism. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32(2), 112-123.
doi: 10.2511/rpsd.32.2.112
Olive, M. L., De la Cruz, B., Davis, T. N., Chan, J. M., Lang, R. B., OReilly, M. F., & Dickson, S. M. (2007). The
effects of enhanced milieu teaching and a voice output communication aid on the requesting of three
children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1505-1513.
doi: 10.1007/s10803-006-0243-6
Seiverling, L., Pantelides, M., Ruiz, H. H., & Sturmey, P. (2010). The effect of behavioral skills training with
generalcase training on staff chaining of child vocalizations within natural language paradigm.
Behavioral Interventions, 25(1), 53-75. doi: 10.1002/bin.293
Whalen, C., & Schreibman, L. (2003). Joint attention training for children with autism using behavior modi-
fication procedures. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44(3), 456-468.
doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00135
Naturalistic Intervention Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Wong, C. (2013). Naturalistic intervention (NI) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter
Disorders.
Adapted from:
Franzone, E. (2009). Overview of naturalistic intervention. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Waisman Center, The
National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Parent-Implemented Intervention
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Parent-implemented intervention (PII) includes programs in which parents are responsible for
carrying out some or all of the intervention(s) with their own child. Parents are trained by profes-
sionals one-on-one or in group formats in home or community settings. Methods for training
parents vary, but may include didactic instruction, discussions, modeling, coaching, or perfor-
mance feedback. Parents may be trained to teach their child new skills, such as communication,
play or self-help, and/or to decrease challenging behavior. Once parents are trained, they proceed
to implement all or part of the intervention(s) with their child.
Qualifying Evidence
PII meets evidence-based criteria with 8 group design and 12 single case design studies.
Ages
years) to elementary school-age learners (6-11 years) with ASD.
Outcomes
PII can be used effectively to address social, communication, behavior, joint attention, play, cogni-
tive, school-readiness, academic, and adaptive skills.

Aldred, C., Green, J., & Adams, C. (2004). A new social communication intervention for children with au-
tism: Pilot randomised controlled treatment study suggesting effectiveness. Journal of Child Psychol-
ogy and Psychiatry, 45(8), 1420-1430. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00338.x
Green, J., Charman, T., McConachie, H., Aldred, C., Slonims, V., Howlin, P., ... Pickles, A. (2010). Parent-me-
diated communication-focused treatment in children with autism (PACT): A randomised controlled
trial. Lancet, 375(9732), 2152-2160. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60587-9
Hsieh, H. H., Wilder, D. A., & Abellon, O. E. (2011). The effects of training on caregiver implementation of in-
cidental teaching. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(1), 199-203. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-199
Jocelyn, L. J., Casiro, O. G., Beattie, D., Bow, J., & Kneisz, J. (1998). Treatment of children with autism: A ran-
domized controlled trial to evaluate a caregiver-based intervention program in community day-care
centers. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 19(5), 326-334.
doi: 10.1097/00004703-199810000-00002
Kaiser, A. P., Hancock, T. B., & Nietfeld, J. P. (2000). The effects of parent-implemented enhanced milieu
teaching on the social communication of children who have autism. Early Education and Develop-
ment, 11(4), 423-446. doi: 10.1207/s15566935eed1104_4
Kasari, C., Gulsrud, A. C., Wong, C., Kwon, S., & Locke, J. (2010). Randomized controlled caregiver medi-
ated joint engagement intervention for toddlers with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 40(9), 1045-1056. doi: 0.1007/s10803-010-0955-5
Kashinath, S., Woods, J., & Goldstein, H. (2006). Enhancing generalized teaching strategy use in daily
routines by parents of children with autism. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 49(3),
466-485. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/036)
Krantz, P. J., MacDuff, M. T., & McClannahan, L. E. (1993). Programming participation in family activities
for children with autism: Parents use of photographic activity schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior
Moran, D. R., & Whitman, T. L. (1991). Developing generalized teaching skills in mothers of autistic chil-
dren. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 13(1), 13-37. doi: 10.1300/J019v13n01_02
Najdowski, A. C., Wallace, M. D., Reagon, K., Penrod, B., Higbee, T. S., & Tarbox, J. (2010). Utilizing a home-
based parent training approach in the treatment of food selectivity. Behavioral Interventions, 25(2),
89-107. doi: 10.1002/bin.298
Reagon, K. A., & Higbee, T. S. (2009). Parentimplemented script fading to promote play-based verbal
initiations in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(3), 659-664. doi: 10.1901/
jaba.2009.42-659
Rickards, A. L., Walstab, J. E., Wright-Rossi, R. A., Simpson, J., & Reddihough, D. S. (2007). A random-
ized, controlled trial of a home-based intervention program for children with autism and devel-
opmental delay. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 28(4), 308-316. doi: 10.1097/
DBP.0b013e318032792e
Rocha, M. L., Schreibman, L., & Stahmer, A. C. (2007). Effectiveness of training parents to teach joint attention
in children with autism. Journal of Early Intervention, 29(2), 154-172. doi: 10.1177/105381510702900207
Schertz, H. H., & Odom, S. L. (2007). Promoting joint attention in toddlers with autism: A parent-mediated
developmental model. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(8), 1562-1575. doi: 10.1007/
s10803-006-0290-z
Sofronoff, K., Jahnel, D., & Sanders, M. (2011). Stepping Stones Triple P seminars for parents of a child with
a disability: A randomized controlled trial. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(6), 2253-2262.
doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.07.046
Stahmer, A. C., & Gist, K. (2001). The effects of an accelerated parent education program on technique mastery and
child outcome. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 3(2), 75-82. doi: 10.1177/109830070100300203
Stiebel, D. (1999). Promoting augmentative communication during daily routines: A parent problem-
solving intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1(3), 159-169.
doi: 10.1177/109830079900100304
Symon, J. B. (2005). Expanding interventions for children with autism parents as trainers. Journal of Posi-
tive Behavior Interventions, 7(3), 159-173. doi: 10.1177/10983007050070030501
Tarbox, J., Wallace, M. D., & Tarbox, R. S. (2002). Successful generalized parent training and failed schedule
thinning of response blocking for automatically maintained object mouthing. Behavioral Interven-
tions, 17(3), 169-178. doi: 10.1002/bin.116
Whittingham, K., Sofronoff, K., Sheffield, J., & Sanders, M. R. (2009). Stepping Stones Triple P: An RCT of
a parenting program with parents of a child diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(4), 469-480. doi: 10.1007/s10802-008-9285-x
Parent-Implemented Intervention Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Schultz, T. R. (2013). Parent-implemented intervention (PII) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina,
Spectrum Disorders.
Adapted from:
Hendricks, D. R. (2009). Overview of parent-implemented intervention. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina,
Spectrum Disorders.
Peer-Mediated Instruction and Intervention
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Peer-mediated instruction and intervention (PMII) is used to teach typically developing peers
ways to interact with and help learners with ASD acquire new behavior, communication, and
social skills by increasing social opportunities within natural environments. With PMII, peers are
systematically taught ways of engaging learners with ASD in social interactions in both teacher-
directed and learner-initiated activities. Peers are paired or placed in cooperative learning groups
that include at least one learner with ASD. PMII is a useful strategy for promoting positive transi-
tions across settings.
Qualifying Evidence
PMII meets evidence-based criteria with 15 single case design studies.
Ages
Outcomes
PMII can be used effectively to address social, communication, joint attention, play, school-readi-
ness, and academic skills.

Carr, E. J. & Darcy, M. (1990). Setting generality of peer modeling in children with autism. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 20(1), 45-59. doi: 10.1007/BF02206856
Carter, E. W., Cushing, L. S., Clark, N. M., & Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Effects of peer support interventions on
students access to the general curriculum and social interactions. Research and Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities, 30(1), 15-25. doi: 10.2511/rpsd.30.1.15
Kamps, D. M., Barbetta, P. M., Leonard, B. R., & Delquadri, J. (1994). Classwide peer tutoring: An integration
strategy to improve reading skills and promote peer interactions among students with autism and
general education peers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(1), 49-61.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-49
Kamps, D. M., Potucek, J., Lopez, A. G., Kravits, T., & Kemmerer, K. (1997). The use of peer networks across
multiple settings to improve social interaction for students with autism. Journal of Behavioral Educa-
tion, 7(3), 335-357. doi: 10.1023/A:1022879607019
Kohler, F. W., Strain, P. S., Maretsky, S., & DeCesare, L. (1990). Promoting positive and supportive interac-
tions between preschoolers: An analysis of group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Early Interven-
tion, 14(4), 327-341. doi: 10.1177/105381519001400404
Laushey, K. M., & Heflin, L. J. (2000). Enhancing social skills of kindergarten children with autism through
the training of multiple peers as tutors. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30(3), 183-
193. doi: 10.1023/A:1005558101038
Lee, S., Odom, S. L., & Loftin, R. (2007). Social engagement with peers and stereotypic behavior of children
with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9(2), 67-79.
doi: 10.1177/10983007070090020401
Mundschenk, N. A., & Sasso, G. M. (1995). Assessing sufficient social exemplars for students with autism.
Behavioral Disorders, 21(1), 62-78.
Nelson, C., McDonnell, A. P., Johnston, S. S., Crompton, A., & Nelson, A. R. (2007). Keys to play: A strategy to
increase the social interactions of young children with autism and their typically developing peers.
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42(2), 165-181.
Odom, S. L. (1991). Reducing teacher prompts in peer-mediated interventions for young children with
autism. The Journal of Special Education, 25(1), 26-43. doi: 10.1177/002246699102500103
Owen-DeSchryver, J. S., Carr, E. G., Cale, S. I., & Blakeley-Smith, A. (2008). Promoting social interactions
between students with autism spectrum disorders and their peers in inclusive school settings. Focus
on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 23(1), 15-28. doi: 10.1177/1088357608314370
Petursdottir, A. L., McComas, J., McMaster, K., & Horner, K. (2007). The effects of scripted peer tutoring and
programming common stimuli on social interactions of a student with autism spectrum disorder.
Sainato, D. M., Goldstein, H., & Strain, P. S. (1992). Effects of selfevaluation on preschool childrens use of
social interaction strategies with their classmates with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
25(1), 127-141.
Sasso, G. M., Mundschenk, N. A., Melloy, K. J., & Casey, S. D. (1998). A comparison of the effects of organis-
mic and setting variables on the social interaction behavior of children with developmental disabili-
ties and autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 13(1), 2-16.
Trembath, D., Balandin, S., Togher, L., & Stancliffe, R. J. (2009). Peer-mediated teaching and augmentative
and alternative communication for preschool-aged children with autism. Journal of Intellectual and
Developmental Disability, 34(2), 173-186. doi: 10.1080/13668250902845210
Peer-Mediated Instruction and Intervention Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Fettig, A. (2013). Peer-mediated instruction and intervention (PMII) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, The National Professional Development Center on
Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Adapted from:
Neitzel, J. (2008). Overview of peer-mediated instruction and intervention for children and youth with autism spectrum
disorders. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, The
Picture Exchange Communication System
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
The Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) is used to teach learners to communicate
in a social context. Using PECS, learners are initially taught to give a picture of a desired item to
a communicative partner in exchange for the item. There are six phases of PECS instruction: (1)
how to communicate, (2) distance and persistence, (3) picture discrimination, (4) sentence
structure, (5) responsive requesting, and (6) commenting.
Qualifying Evidence
PECS meets evidence-based criteria with 2 group design and 4 single case design studies.
Ages
(3-5 years) to middle school-age learners (12-14 years) with ASD.
Outcomes
PECS can be used effectively to address social, communication, and joint attention skills.

Ali, E., MacFarland, S. Z., & Umbreit, J. (2011). Effectiveness of combining tangible symbols with the Picture
Exchange Communication System to teach requesting skills to children with multiple disabilities
including visual impairment. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46(3),
425-435.
Angermeier, K., Schlosser, R. W., Luiselli, J. K., Harrington, C., & Carter, B. (2008). Effects of iconicity on
requesting with the Picture Exchange Communication System in children with autism spectrum
disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2(3), 430-446. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2007.09.004
Carr, D., & Felce, J. (2007). The effects of PECS teaching to Phase III on the communicative interactions be-
tween children with autism and their teachers. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(4),
724-737. doi: 10.1007/s10803-006-0203-1
Dogoe, M. S., Banda, D. R., & Lock, R. H. (2010). Acquisition and generalization of the Picture Exchange
Communication System behaviors across settings, persons, and stimulus classes with three students
with autism. Education and Training in Autism and Development Disabilities, 45(2), 216-229.
Howlin, P., Gordon, R. K., Pasco, G., Wade, A., & Charman, T. (2007). The effectiveness of Picture Ex-
change Communication System (PECS) training for teachers of children with autism: A pragmatic,
group randomised controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(5), 473-481.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01707.x
Jurgens, A., Anderson, A., & Moore, D. W. (2009). The effect of teaching PECS to a child with autism on ver-
bal behaviour, play, and social functioning. Behaviour Change, 26(1), 66-81. doi: 10.1375/bech.26.1.66
Picture Exchange communication System Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Wong, C. (2013). Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North
Adapted from:
Collet-Klingenberg, L. (2008). Overview of Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) for children and youth
with autism spectrum disorders. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Waisman Center, The National Professional
Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Pivotal Response Training
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Pivotal response training (PRT) is a naturalistic intervention based on the principles of applied
behavior analysis (ABA) to teach learners with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). PRT builds
on learner initiative and interests, and is particularly effective for developing communication,
language, play, and social behaviors. PRT was developed to create a more efficient and effective
intervention by enhancing pivotal learning variables: motivation, responding to multiple cues,
self-management, and self-initiations of social interactions. According to theory, these skills are
pivotal because they are the foundational skills upon which learners with ASD can make wide-
spread and generalized improvements in many other areas. Key procedures include child choice,
reinforcement of attempts, incorporation of maintenance tasks, and direct/natural reinforcers
contingent on appropriate behavior.
Qualifying Evidence
PRT meets evidence-based criteria with 1 group design and 7 single case design studies.
Ages
years) to middle school-age learners (12-14 years) with ASD.
Outcomes
PRT can be used effectively to address social, communication, joint attention, and play skills.

Harper, C. B., Symon, J. B., & Frea, W. D. (2008). Recess is time-in: Using peers to improve social skills of
doi: 10.1007/s10803-007-0449-2
Koegel, R. L., & Frea, W. D. (1993). Treatment of social behavior in autism through the modification of piv-
otal social skills. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26(3), 369-377. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1993.26-369
Kuhn, L. R., Bodkin, A. E., Devlin, S. D., & Doggett, R. A. (2008). Using pivotal response training with peers
in special education to facilitate play in two children with autism. Education and Training in Develop-
mental Disabilities, 43(1), 37-45.
Nefdt, N., Koegel, R., Singer, G., & Gerber, M. (2010). The use of a self-directed learning program to provide
introductory training in pivotal response treatment to parents of children with autism. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(1), 23-32. doi: 10.1177/1098300709334796
Pierce, K., & Schreibman, L. (1997). Multiple peer use of pivotal response training to increase social behav-
iors of classmates with autism: Results from trained and untrained peers. Journal of Applied Behavior
Robinson, S. E. (2011). Teaching paraprofessionals of students with autism to implement pivotal response
treatment in inclusive school settings using a brief video feedback training package. Focus on Autism
and Other Developmental Disabilities, 26, 105-118. doi: 10.1177/1088357611407063
Stahmer, A. C. (1995). Teaching symbolic play skills to children with autism using pivotal response training.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25(2), 123-141. doi: 10.1007/BF02178500
Pivotal Response Training Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Wong, C. (2013). Pivotal response training (PRT) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter
Disorders.
Adapted from:
Vismara, L. A., & Bogin, J. (2009). Overview of pivotal response training. Sacramento: University of California at Davis
School of Medicine, M.I.N.D. Institute, The National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum
Disorders.
Prompting
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Prompting (PP) procedures include any help given to learners that assist them in using a specific
skill. Verbal, gestural, or physical assistance is given to learners to assist them in acquiring or
engaging in a targeted behavior or skill. Prompts are generally given by an adult or peer before
or as a learner attempts to use a skill. These procedures are often used in conjunction with other
evidence-based practices including time delay and reinforcement or are part of protocols for the
use of other evidence-based practices such as pivotal response training, discrete trial teaching,
and video modeling. Thus, prompting procedures are considered foundational to the use of many
other evidence-based practices.
Qualifying Evidence
PP meets evidence-based criteria with 1 group design and 32 single case design studies.
Ages
Outcomes
PP can be used effectively to address social, communication, behavior, joint attention, play,
school-readiness, academic, motor, adaptive, and vocational skills.
Akmanoglu, N., & Batu, S. (2004). Teaching pointing to numerals to individuals with autism using simulta-
neous prompting. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39(4), 326-336.
Anderson, J., & Le, D. D. (2011). Abatement of intractable vocal stereotypy using an overcorrection proce-
dure. Behavioral Interventions, 26(2), 134-146. doi: 10.1002/bin.326
Barton, E. E., & Wolery, M. (2010). Training teachers to promote pretend play in young children with dis-
abilities. Exceptional Children, 77(1), 85-106.
Batchelder, A., McLaughlin, T. F., Weber, K. P., Derby, K. M., & Gow, T. (2009). The effects of hand-over-hand
and a dot-to-dot tracing procedure on teaching an autistic student to write his name. Journal of Devel-
opmental and Physical Disabilities, 21(2), 131-138. doi: 10.1007/s10882-009-9131-2
Birkan, B., McClannahan, L. E., & Krantz, P. J. (2007). Effects of superimposition and background fading on
the sight-word reading of a boy with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1(2), 117-125.
doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2006.08.003
Bouxsein, K. J., Tiger, J. H., & Fisher, W. W. (2008). A comparison of general and specific instructions to pro-
mote task engagement and completion by a young man with Asperger syndrome. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 41(1), 113-116. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-113
Cihak, D. F., & Grim, J. (2008). Teaching students with autism spectrum disorder and moderate intellec-
tual disabilities to use counting-on strategies to enhance independent purchasing skills. Research in
Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2(4), 716-727.
Coe, D., Matson, J., Fee, V., Manikam, R., & Linarello, C. (1990). Training nonverbal and verbal play skills to
mentally retarded and autistic children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 20(2), 177-
187. doi: 10.1007/BF02284717
Endicott, K., & Higbee, T. S. (2007). Contriving motivating operations to evoke mands for information in
preschoolers with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1(3), 210-217.
doi: 10.1016/rasd.2006.10.003
Fischer, J. L., Howard, J. S., Sparkman, C. R., & Moore, A. G. (2010). Establishing generalized syntactical
responding in young children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4(1), 76-88.
doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2009.07.009
Groskreutz, N. C., Groskreutz, M. P., & Higbee, T. S. (2011). Effects of varied levels of treatment integrity on
appropriate toy manipulation in children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(4),
1358-1369. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2011.01.018
Hadwin, J., Baron-Cohen, S., Howlin, P., & Hill, K. (1996). Can we teach children with autism to understand
emotions, belief, or pretence? Development and Psychopathology, 8(2), 345-365.
doi: 10.1017/S0954579400007136
Harris, S. L., Handleman, J. S., & Alessandri, M. (1990). Teaching youths with autism to offer assistance.
Ingvarsson, E. T., & Hollobaugh, T. (2011). A comparison of prompting tactics to establish intraverbals in
children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(3), 659-664.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-659
Ingvarsson, E. T., & Le, D. D. (2011). Further evaluation of prompting tactics for establishing intraverbal
responding in children with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27(1), 75-93.
Koegel, R. L., Shirotova, L., & Koegel, L. K. (2009). Brief report: Using individualized orienting cues to
facilitate first-word acquisition in non-responders with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 39(11), 1587-1592. doi: 10.1007/s10803-009-0765-9
Leaf, J. B., Sheldon, J. B., & Sherman, J. A. (2010). Comparison of simultaneous prompting and no-no
prompting in two-choice discrimination learning with children with autism. Journal of Applied
Montgomery, J., Storey, K., Post, M., & Lemley, J. (2011). The use of auditory prompting systems for increas-
ing independent performance of students with autism in employment training. International Journal
of Rehabilitation Research, 34(4), 330-335. doi: 10.1097/MRR.0b013e32834a8fa8
Ostryn, C., & Wolfe, P. S. (2011). Teaching children with autism to ask whats that? using a picture com-
munication with vocal results. Infants & Young Children, 24(2), 174-192.
doi: 10.1097/IYC.0b013e31820d95ff
Reichle, J., Dropik, P. L., Alden-Anderson, E., & Haley, T. (2008). Teaching a young child with autism to re-
quest assistance conditionally: A preliminary study. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,
17(3), 231-240. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2008/022)
Shabani, D. B., Katz, R. C., Wilder, D. A., Beauchamp, K., Taylor, C. R., & Fischer, K. J. (2002). Increasing social
initiations in children with autism: Effects of a tactile prompt. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
35(1), 79-83. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-79
Shillingsburg, M. A., Valentino, A. L., Bowen, C. N., Bradley, D., & Zavatkay, D. (2011). Teaching children with
autism to request information. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(1), 670-679.
doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2010.08.004
Symons, F., & Davis, M. (1994). Instructional conditions and stereotyped behavior: The function
of prompts. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(4), 317-324. doi:
10.1016/0005-7916(94)90040-X
Tarbox, J., Zuckerman, C. K., Bishop, M. R., Olive, M. L., & OHora, D. P. (2011). Rule-governed behavior:
Teaching a preliminary repertoire of rule-following to children with autism. The Analysis of Verbal
Behavior, 27(1), 125-139.
Taylor, B. A., & Hoch, H. (2008). Teaching children with autism to respond to and initiate bids for joint at-
tention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(3), 377-391. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-377
Thomas, B. R., Lafasakis, M., & Sturmey, P. (2010). The effects of prompting, fading, and differential
reinforcement on vocal mands in non-verbal preschool children with autism spectrum disorders.
Twarek, M., Cihon, T., & Eshleman, J. (2010). The effects of fluent levels of Big 6+ 6 skill elements on
functional motor skills with children with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 25(4), 275-293.
doi: 10.1002/bin.317
Vedora, J., Meunier, L., & Mackay, H. (2009). Teaching intraverbal behavior to children with autism: A com-
parison of textual and echoic prompts. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 25(1), 79-86.
Whalon, K., & Hanline, M. F. (2008). Effects of a reciprocal questioning intervention on the question
generation and responding of children with autism spectrum disorder. Education and Training in
Williams, G., Donley, C. R., & Keller, J. W. (2000). Teaching children with autism to ask questions about hid-
den objects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33(4), 627-630. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2000.33-627
Yanardag, M., Birkan, B., Ylmaz, I., Konukman, F. K., Agbuga, B., & Lieberman, L. (2011). The effects of
least-to-most prompting procedure in teaching basic tennis skills to children with autism. Kinezi-
ologija, 43(1), 44-55.
Yi, J. I., Christian, L., Vittimberga, G., & Lowenkron, B. (2006). Generalized negatively reinforced manding in
children with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 22(1), 21-33.
Ylmaz, I., Konukman, F., Birkan, B., & Yanardag, M. (2010). Effects of most to least prompting on teaching
simple progression swimming skill for children with autism. Education and Training in Autism and
Developmental Disabilities, 45, 440-448.
Prompting Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Cox, A. W. (2013) Prompting (PP) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child
Adapted from:
Neitzel, J., & Wolery, M. (2009). Overview of prompting. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Gra-
ham Child Development Institute, The National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Reinforcement
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Reinforcement (R+) is used to teach new skills and to increase behavior. Reinforcement estab-
lishes the relationship between the learners behavior/use of skill and the consequence of that
behavior/skill. This relationship is only reinforcing if the consequence increases the likelihood
that the learner performs that behavior/skill. Reinforcement can be positive or negative. Positive
reinforcement is the delivery of a reinforcer (i.e., something that the learner desires which may
be tangible, edible, activity-based, interest-based, and so on) after the learner does the target skill
or behavior. Positive reinforcement can also be implemented in the format of a token economy
program. Token economy programs systematically give learners access to tokens when targeted
behaviors/skills are used. These tokens are exchanged for desired objects or activities that rein-
force the learners use of that behavior/skill. Negative reinforcement is the removal of an object or
activity that the learner does not want (e.g., taking a break after finishing a set of math problems)
when the learner does the identified behavior or skill. Reinforcement is a foundational evidence-
based practice in that it is almost always used in conjunction with other evidence-based practices
(e.g., prompting, pivotal response training, discrete trial teaching, functional communication
training).
Qualifying Evidence
R+ meets evidence-based criteria with 43 single case design studies.
Ages
Outcomes
R+ can be used effectively to address social, communication, behavior, joint attention, play, cog-
nitive, school-readiness, academic, motor, adaptive, and vocational skills.

Athens, E. S., Vollmer, T. R., Sloman, K. N., & Pipkin, C. S. P. (2008). An analysis of vocal stereotypy and
therapist fading. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(2), 291-297. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-291
Baltruschat, L., Hasselhorn, M., Tarbox, J., Dixon, D. R., Najdowski, A. C., Mullins, R. D., & Gould, E. R.
(2011). Addressing working memory in children with autism through behavioral intervention. Re-
search in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(1), 267-276. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2010.04.008
Baltruschat, L., Hasselhorn, M., Tarbox, J., Dixon, D. R., Najdowski, A. C., Mullins, R. D., & Gould, E. R.
(2011). Further analysis of the effects of positive reinforcement on working memory in children with
autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(2), 855-863. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2010.09.015
Bartlett, S. M., Rapp, J. T., Krueger, T. K., & Henrickson, M. L. (2011). The use of response cost to treat spit-
ting by a child with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 26(1), 76-83. doi: 10.1002/bin.322
Buckley, S. D., & Newchok, D. K. (2006). Analysis and treatment of problem behavior evoked by music.
Charlop, M. H., Kurtz, P. F., & Casey, F. G. (1990). Using aberrant behaviors as reinforcers for autistic chil-
dren. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23(2), 163-181. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1990.23-163
Charlop-Christy, M. H., & Haymes, L. K. (1998). Using objects of obsession as token reinforcers for children
with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 28(3), 189-198.
doi: 10.1023/A:1026061220171
DeLeon, I. G., Anders, B. M., Rodriguez-Catter, V., & Neidert, P. L. (2000). The effects of noncontingent ac-
cess to single-versus multiple-stimulus sets on self-injurious behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
Esch, B. E., Carr, J. E., & Grow, L. L. (2009). Evaluation of an enhanced stimulus-stimulus pairing procedure
to increase early vocalizations of children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(2),
225-241. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-225
Falcomata, T. S., Roane, H. S., Hovanetz, A. N., Kettering, T. L., & Keeney, K. M. (2004). An evaluation of
response cost in the treatment of inappropriate vocalizations maintained by automatic reinforcement.
Graff, R. B., & Larsen, J. (2011). The relation between obtained preference value and reinforcer potency.
Graff, R. B., & Libby, M. E. (1999). A comparison of presession and within-session reinforcement choice.
Groskreutz, M. P., Groskreutz, N. C., & Higbee, T. S. (2011). Response competition and stimulus preference
in the treatment of automatically reinforced behavior: A comparison. Journal of Applied Behavior
Hagopian, L. P., Bruzek, J. L., Bowman, L. G., & Jennett, H. K. (2007). Assessment and treatment of problem
behavior occasioned by interruption of free-operant behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
40(1), 89-103. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2007.63-05
Hagopian, L. P., Farrell, D. A., & Amari, A. (1996). Treating total liquid refusal with backward chaining and
fading. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(4), 573-575. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-573
Hagopian, L. P., Fisher, W. W., & Legacy, S. M. (1994). Schedule effects of noncontingent reinforcement on
attention-maintained destructive behavior in identical quadruplets. Journal of Applied Behavior
Harchik, A. E., Harchik, A. J., Luce, S. C., & Sherman, J. A. (1990). Teaching autistic and severely handicapped
children to recruit praise: Acquisition and generalization. Research in Developmental Disabilities,
11(1), 77-95. doi: 10.1016/0891-4222(90)90006-T
Higbee, T. S., Carr, J. E., & Patel, M. R. (2002). The effects of interpolated reinforcement on resistance to
extinction in children diagnosed with autism: A preliminary investigation. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 23(1), 61-78. doi: 10.1016/S0891-4222(01)00092-0
Hoch, H., McComas, J. J., Johnson, L., Faranda, N., & Guenther, S. L. (2002). The effects of magnitude and
quality of reinforcement on choice responding during play activities. Journal of Applied Behavior
Hoch, H., McComas, J. J., Thompson, A. L., & Paone, D. (2002). Concurrent reinforcement schedules: Behav-
ior change and maintenance without extinction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35(2), 155-169.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-155
Hoch, H., Taylor, B. A., & Rodriguez, A. (2009). Teaching teenagers with autism to answer cell phones and
seek assistance when lost. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2(1), 14-20.
Kern, L., Carberry, N., & Haidara, C. (1997). Analysis and intervention with two topographies of challeng-
ing behavior exhibited by a young woman with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 18(4),
275-287. doi: 10.1016/S0891-4222(97)00009-7
Kern, L., & Marder, T. J. (1996). A comparison of simultaneous and delayed reinforcement as treatments for
food selectivity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(2), 243-246. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-243
Koegel, L. K., Camarata, S. M., Valdez-Menchaca, M., & Koegel, R. L. (1997). Setting generalization of
question-asking by children with autism. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 102(4), 346-357.
doi: 10.1352/0895-8017(1998)102<0346:SGOQBC>2.0.CO;2
Kohler, F. W., Strain, P. S., Maretsky, S., & DeCesare, L. (1990). Promoting positive and supportive interac-
tions between preschoolers: An analysis of group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Early Interven-
tion, 14(4), 327-341. doi: 10.1177/105381519001400404
LeBlanc, L. A., Carr, J. E., Crossett, S. E., Bennett, C. M., & Detweiler, D. D. (2005). Intensive outpatient behav-
ioral treatment of primary urinary incontinence of children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other
Lee, R., & Sturmey, P. (2006). The effects of lag schedules and preferred materials on variable responding in
students with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36(3), 421-428.
doi: 10.1007/s10803-006-0080-7
Leung, J. P., & Wu, K. I. (1997). Teaching receptive naming of Chinese characters to children with autism by
incorporating echolalia. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30(1), 59-68. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-59
Levin, L., & Carr, E. G. (2001). Food selectivity and problem behavior in children with developmental dis-
abilities analysis and intervention. Behavior Modification, 25(3), 443-470.
doi: 10.1177/0145445501253004
Machalicek, W., OReilly, M., Chan, J. M., Lang, R., Rispoli, M., Davis, T., ... Didden, R. (2009). Using video-
conferencing to conduct functional analysis of challenging behavior and develop classroom behav-
ioral support plans for students with autism. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities,
44(2), 207-217.
McDonald, M. E., & Hemmes, N. S. (2003). Increases in social initiation toward an adolescent with autism:
Reciprocity effects. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24(6), 453-465.
doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2003.04.001
Milo, J. S., Mace, F. C., & Nevin, J. A. (2010). The effects of constant versus varied reinforcers on prefer-
ence and resistance to change. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93(3), 385-394. doi:
10.1901/jeab.2010.93-385
Newman, B. (2005). Self-management of initiations by students diagnosed with autism. The Analysis of
Verbal Behavior, 21(1), 117-122.
Normand, M. P., & Beaulieu, L. (2011). Further evaluation of response-independent delivery of preferred
stimuli and child compliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(3), 665-669.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-665
Nuzzolo-Gomez, R., Leonard, M. A., Ortiz, E., Rivera, C. M., & Greer, R. D. (2002). Teaching children with
autism to prefer books or toys over stereotypy or passivity. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
4(2), 80-87. doi: 10.1177/109830070200400203
Piazza, C. C., Hanley, G. P., & Fisher, W. W. (1996). Functional analysis and treatment of cigarette pica. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(4), 437-450. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-437
Reichle, J., Johnson, L., Monn, E., & Harris, M. (2010). Task engagement and escape maintained challenging
behavior: Differential effects of general and explicit cues when implementing a signaled delay in the
delivery of reinforcement. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(6), 709-720.
doi: 10.1007/s10803-010-0946-6
Sidener, T. M., Shabani, D. B., Carr, J. E., & Roland, J. P. (2006). An evaluation of strategies to maintain mands
at practical levels. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 27(6), 632-644.
doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2005.08.002
Stevens, C., Sidener, T. M., Reeve, S. A., & Sidener, D. W. (2011). Effects of behavior-specific and general
praise, on acquisition of tacts in children with pervasive developmental disorders. Research in Autism
Spectrum Disorders, 5(1), 666-669. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2010.08.003
Tarbox, R. S., Ghezzi, P. M., & Wilson, G. (2006). The effects of token reinforcement on attending in a young
child with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 21(3), 155-164. doi: 10.1002/bin.213
Tsiouri, I., & Greer, R. D. (2007). The role of different social reinforcement contingencies in inducing echoic
tacts through motor imitation responding in children with severe language delays. Journal of Early
and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 4(4), 629-647.
Volkert, V. M., Vaz, P., Piazza, C. C., Frese, J., & Barnett, L. (2011). Using a flipped spoon to decrease packing
in children with feeding disorders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(3), 617-621.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-617
Young, J. M., Krantz, P. J., McClannahan, L. E., & Poulson, C. L. (1994). Generalized imitation and response-
class formation in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(4), 685-697.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-685
Reinforcement Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Kucharczyk, S. (2013). Reinforcement (R+) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Gra-
Adapted from:
Neitzel, J. (2009). Overview of reinforcement. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child
Response Interruption/Redirection
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Response interruption/redirection (RIR) involves the introduction of a prompt, comment, or
other distractors when an interfering behavior is occurring that is designed to divert the learners
attention away from the interfering behavior and results in its reduction. Specifically, RIR is used
predominantly to address behaviors that are repetitive, stereotypical, and/or self-injurious. RIR
often is implemented after a functional behavior assessment (FBA) has been conducted to iden-
tify the function of the interfering behavior. RIR is particularly useful with persistent interfering
behaviors that occur in the absence of other people, in a number of different settings, and during
a variety of tasks. These behaviors often are not maintained by attention or escape. Instead, they
are more likely maintained by sensory reinforcement and are often resistant to intervention
attempts. RIR is particularly effective with sensory-maintained behaviors because learners are
interrupted from engaging in interfering behaviors and redirected to more appropriate, alterna-
tive behaviors.
Qualifying Evidence
RIR meets evidence-based criteria with 10 single case design studies.
Ages
Outcomes
RIR can be used effectively to address social, communication, behavior, play, school-readiness,
and adaptive skills.

Ahearn, W. H., Clark, K. M., MacDonald, R. P., & Chung, B. I. (2007). Assessing and treating vocal stereotypy
in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(2), 263-275.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2007.30-06
Ahrens, E. N., Lerman, D. C., Kodak, T., Worsdell, A. S., & Keegan, C. (2011). Further evaluation of response
interruption and redirection as treatment for stereotypy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(1),
95-108. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-95
Cassella, M. D., Sidener, T. M., Sidener, D. W., & Progar, P. R. (2011). Response interruption and redirection
for vocal stereotypy in children with autism: A systematic replication. Journal of Applied Behavior
Duker, P. C., & Schappveld, M. (1996). Increasing on-task behaviour through interruption-prompting.
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 40, 291-297.
Lang, R., OReilly, M., Sigafoos, J., Lancioni, G. E., Machalicek, W., Rispoli, M., & White, P. (2009). Enhancing
the effectiveness of a play intervention by abolishing the reinforcing value of stereotypy: A pilot study.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(4), 889-894. doi:10.1901/jaba.2009.42-889
Lang, R., OReilly, M., Sigafoos, J., Machalicek, W., Rispoli, M., Lancioni, G. E., ... Fragale, C. (2010). The
effects of an abolishing operation intervention component on play skills, challenging behavior, and
stereotypy. Behavior Modification, 34(4), 267-289. doi: 10.1177/0145445510370713
LiuGitz, L., & Banda, D. R. (2010). A replication of the RIRD strategy to decrease vocal stereotypy in a
student with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 25(1), 77-87.
Magnusson, A. F., & Gould, D. D. (2007). Reduction of automaticallymaintained selfinjury using contingent
equipment removal. Behavioral Interventions, 22(1), 57-68. doi: 10.1002/bin.231
Miguel, C. F., Clark, K., Tereshko, L., & Ahearn, W. H. (2009). The effects of response interruption and redi-
rection and sertraline on vocal stereotypy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(4), 883-888. doi:
10.1901/jaba.2009.42-883
Rapp, J. T., Vollmer, T. R., & Hovanetz, A. N. (2006). Evaluation and treatment of swimming pool avoidance
exhibited by an adolescent girl with autism. Behavior Therapy, 36(1), 101-105. doi: 10.1016/S0005-
7894(05)80058-9
Response Interruption/Redirection Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Boyd, B., & Wong, C. (2013). Response interruption/redirection (RIR) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North
Adapted from:
Neitzel, J. (2009). Overview of response interruption/redirection. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank
Disorders.
Scripting
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Scripting (SC) involves presenting learners with a verbal and/or written description about a
specific skill or situation that serves as a model for the learner. The main rationale of SC is to help
learners anticipate what may occur during a given activity and improve their ability to appropri-
ately participate in the activity. SC are practiced repeatedly before the skill is used in the actual
situation. When learners are able to use the scripts successfully in actual situations, the script
should be systematically faded. SC is often used in conjunction with modeling, prompting, and
reinforcement.
Qualifying Evidence
SC meets evidence-based criteria with 1 group design and 8 single case design studies.
Ages
Outcomes
SC can be used effectively to address social, communication, joint attention, play, cognitive,
school-readiness, and vocational skills.

Brown, J. L., Krantz, P. J., McClannahan, L. E., & Poulson, C. L. (2008). Using script fading to promote natural
environment stimulus control of verbal interactions among youths with autism. Research in Autism
Charlop-Christy, M. H., & Kelso, S. E. (2003). Teaching children with autism conversational speech using a
cue card/written script program. Education and Treatment of Children, 26(2), 108-127.
Dotto-Fojut, K. M., Reeve, K. F., Townsend, D. B., & Progar, P. R. (2011). Teaching adolescents with autism
to describe a problem and request assistance during simulated vocational tasks. Research in Autism
Ganz, J. B., Kaylor, M., Bourgeois, B., & Hadden, K. (2008). The impact of social scripts and visual cues on
verbal communication in three children with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other
Goldsmith, T. R., LeBlanc, L. A., & Sautter, R. A. (2007). Teaching intraverbal behavior to children with
autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1(1), 1-13.
Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (1993). Teaching children with autism to initiate to peers: Effects of a
script-fading procedure. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26(1), 121-132.
MacDuff, J. L., Ledo, R., McClannahan, L. E., & Krantz, P. J. (2007). Using scripts and script-fading proce-
dures to promote bids for joint attention by young children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum
Disorders, 1(4), 281-290. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2006.11.003
Murdock, L. C., & Hobbs, J. Q. (2011). Picture me playing: increasing pretend play dialogue of children
with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(7), 870-878. doi:
10.1007/s10803-010-1108-6
Stevenson, C. L., Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (2000). Social interaction skills for children with
autism: A script-fading procedure for nonreaders. Behavioral Interventions, 15(1), 1-20. doi: 10.1002/
(SICI)1099-078X(200001/03)15:1<1::AID-BIN41>3.0.CO;2-V
Scripting Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Fleury, V. P. (2013). Scripting (SC) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child
Self-Management
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Self-management (SM) is an intervention package that teaches learners to independently regu-
late their own behavior. Self-management involves teaching learners to discriminate between
appropriate and inappropriate behaviors, accurately monitor and record their own behaviors, and
reinforce themselves for behaving appropriately. Although learners may initially require adult
support to accurately record behaviors and provide self-reinforcement, this support is faded over
time. Self-management is often used in conjunction with other evidence-based practices includ-
ing modeling, video modeling, and visual supports.
Qualifying Evidence
SM meets evidence-based criteria with 10 single case design studies.
Ages
Outcomes
SM can be used effectively to address social, communication, behavior, play, school-readiness,
academic, and vocational skills.

Ganz, J. B., & Sigafoos, J. (2005). Self-monitoring: Are young adults with MR and autism able to utilize cog-
nitive strategies independently? Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40(1), 24-33.
Kern, L., Marder, T. J., Boyajian, A. E., Elliot, C. M., & McElhattan, D. (1997). Augmenting the independence
of self-management procedures by teaching self-initiation across settings and activities. School Psy-
chology Quarterly, 12(1), 23-32. doi: 10.1037/h0088944
Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L., Hurley, C., & Frea, W. D. (1992). Improving social skills and disruptive behavior
in children with autism through selfmanagement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(2), 341-
353. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1992.25-341
Koegel, R. L., & Koegel, L. K. (1990). Extended reductions in stereotypic behavior of students with autism
through a selfmanagement treatment package. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23(1), 119-127.
doi:10.1901/jaba.1990.23-119
Loftin, R. L., Odom, S. L., & Lantz, J. F. (2008). Social interaction and repetitive motor behaviors. Journal of
Mancina, C., Tankersley, M., Kamps, D., Kravits, T., & Parrett, J. (2000). Brief report: Reduction of inappro-
priate vocalizations for a child with autism using a self-management treatment program. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30(6), 599-606. doi: 10.1023/A:1005695512163
Moore, T. R. (2009). A brief report on the effects of a self-management treatment package on stereotypic
behavior. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3(3), 695-701. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd2009.01.010
Newman, B. (1995). Self-management of schedule following in three teenagers with autism. Behavioral
Disorders, 20(3), 190-96.
Shogren, K. A., Lang, R., Machalicek, W., Rispoli, M. J., & OReilly, M. (2011). Self- versus teacher manage-
ment of behavior for elementary school students with Asperger syndrome: Impact on classroom
behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13(2), 87-96. doi: 10.1177/1098300710384508
Stahmer, A. C., & Schreibman, L. (1992). Teaching children with autism appropriate play in unsupervised
environments using a selfmanagement treatment package. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
25(2), 447-459. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1992.25-447
Self-Management Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Brock, M. E. (2013). Self-management (SM) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Gra-
Adapted from:
Neitzel, J., & Busick, M. (2009). Overview of self-management. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank
Disorders.
Social Narratives
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Social narratives (SN) are interventions that describe social situations in some detail by high-
lighting relevant cues and offering examples of appropriate responding. They are aimed at
helping learners adjust to changes in routine and adapt their behaviors based on the social and
physical cues of a situation, or to teach specific social skills or behaviors. Social narratives are in-
dividualized according to learner needs and typically are quite short, perhaps including pictures
or other visual aids. Usually written in first person from the perspective of the learner, social
narratives include sentences that detail the situation, provide suggestions for appropriate learner
responses, and describe the thoughts and feelings of other people involved in the situation.
Qualifying Evidence
SN meets evidence-based criteria with 17 single case design studies.
Ages
Outcomes
SN can be used effectively to address social, communication, behavior, joint attention, play,
school-readiness, academic, and adaptive skills.

Barry, L. M., & Burlew, S. B. (2004). Using social stories to teach choice and play skills to children with
autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19(1), 45-51.
doi: 10.1177/10883576040190010601
Bock, M. A. (2007). The impact of social-behavioral learning strategy training on the social interaction
skills of four students with Asperger syndrome. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities,
22(2), 88-95. doi: 10.1177/10883576070220020901
Campbell, A., & Tincani, M. (2011). The power card strategy: Strength-based intervention to increase direc-
tion following of children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
13(4), 240-249. doi: 10.1177/1098300711400608
Chan, J. M., & OReilly, M. F. (2008). A Social Stories intervention package for students with autism in
inclusive classroom settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(3), 405-409.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-405
Chan, J. M., OReilly, M. F., Lang, R. B., Boutot, E. A., White, P. J., Pierce, N., & Baker, S. (2011). Evaluation
of a Social Stories intervention implemented by pre-service teachers for students with autism in
general education settings. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(2), 715-721. doi: 10.1016/j.
rasd.2010.08.005
Delano, M., & Snell, M. E. (2006). The effects of social stories on the social engagement of children with
autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(1), 29-42. doi: 10.1177/10983007060080010501
Dodd, S., Hupp, S. D., Jewell, J. D., & Krohn, E. (2008). Using parents and siblings during a social story inter-
vention for two children diagnosed with PDD-NOS. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities,
20(3), 217-229. doi: 10.1007/s10882-007-9090-4
Hung, L. C., & Smith, C. S. (2011). Autism in Taiwan: Using Social Stories to decrease disruptive behaviour.
The British Journal of Development Disabilities, 57(112), 71-80. doi: 10.1179/096979511798967197
Ivey, M. L., Heflin, L. J., & Alberto, P. (2004). The use of social stories to promote independent behaviors in
novel events for children with PDD-NOS. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19(3),
164-176. doi: 10.1177/10883576040190030401
Kuttler, S., Myles, B. S., & Carlson, J. K. (1998). The use of social stories to reduce precursors to tantrum be-
havior in a student with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 13(3), 176-182.
doi: 10.1177/108835769801300306
Lorimer, P. A., Simpson, R. L., Myles, B. S., & Ganz, J. B. (2002). The use of social stories as a preventative
behavioral intervention in a home setting with a child with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Inter-
ventions, 4(1), 53-60. doi: 10.1177/109830070200400109
Mancil, G. R., Haydon, T., & Whitby, P. (2009). Differentiated effects of paper and computer-assisted Social
Stories on inappropriate behavior in children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmen-
tal Disabilities, 24(4), 205-215. doi: 10.1177/1088357609347324
Ozdemir, S. (2008). The effectiveness of social stories on decreasing disruptive behaviors of children with
autism: Three case studies. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(9), 1689-1696.
doi: 10.1007/s10803-008-0551-0
Sansosti, F. J., & Powell-Smith, K. A. (2006). Using social stories to improve the social behavior of children
with Asperger syndrome. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(1), 43-57.
Scattone, D. (2008). Enhancing the conversation skills of a boy with Aspergers disorder through Social
Stories and video modeling. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(2), 395-400.
doi: 10.1007/s10803-007-0392-2
Scattone, D., Wilczynski, S. M., Edwards, R. P., & Rabian, B. (2002). Decreasing disruptive behaviors of chil-
dren with autism using social stories. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32(6), 535-543.
doi: 10.1023/A:1021250813367
Schneider, N., & Goldstein, H. (2010). Using social stories and visual schedules to improve socially ap-
propriate behaviors in children with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(3), 149-160.
doi: 10.1177/1098300709334198
Social Narratives Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Wong, C. (2013). Social narratives (SN) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham
Adapted from:
Collet-Klingenberg, L., & Franzone, E. (2008). Overview of social narratives. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wais-
Social Skills Training
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Social skills training (SST) involves group or individual instruction designed to teach learners
to appropriately interact with typically developing peers. Most social skills meetings include
instruction on basic concepts, role-playing or practice, and feedback to help learners acquire and
practice communication, play, or social skills to promote positive interactions with peers.
Qualifying Evidence
SST meets evidence-based criteria with 7 group design and 8 single case design studies.
Ages
Outcomes
SST can be used effectively to address social, communication, behavior, play, and cognitive skills.

Belchic, J. K., & Harris, S. L. (1994). The use of multiple peer exemplars to enhance the generalization of
play skills to the siblings of children with autism. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 16(2), 1-25.
doi: 10.1300/J019v16n02_01
Chin, H. Y., & Bernard-Opitz, V. (2000). Teaching conversational skills to children with autism: Effect on the
development of a theory of mind. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30(6), 569-583.
doi: 10.1023/A:1005639427185
Feng, H., Lo, Y. Y., Tsai, S., & Cartledge, G. (2008). The effects of theory-of-mind and social skill training on
the social competence of a sixth-grade student with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
10(4), 228-242. doi: 10.1177/1098300708319906
Gonzalez-Lopez, A., & Kamps, D. M. (1997). Social skills training to increase social interactions between
children with autism and their typical peers. Focus on autism and other developmental disabilities,
12(1), 2-14. doi: 10.1177/108835769701200101
Koenig, K., White, S. W., Pachler, M., Lau, M., Lewis, M., Klin, A., & Scahill, L. (2010). Promoting social skill
development in children with pervasive developmental disorders: A feasibility and efficacy study.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(10), 1209-1218. doi: 10.1007/s10803-010-0979-x
Kroeger, K. A., Schultz, J. R., & Newsom, C. (2007). A comparison of two group-delivered social skills pro-
grams for young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(5), 808-817.
doi: 10.1007/s10803-006-0207-x
Laugeson, E. A., Frankel, F., Mogil, C., & Dillon, A. R. (2009). Parent-assisted social skills training to improve
friendships in teens with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
39(4), 596-606. doi: 10.1007/s10803-008-0664-5
Laushey, K. M., Heflin, L. J., Shippen, M., Alberto, P. A., & Fredrick, L. (2009). Concept mastery routines to
teach social skills to elementary children with high functioning autism. Journal of Autism and Devel-
opmental Disorders, 39(10), 1435-1448. doi: 10.1007/s10803-009-0757-9
Leaf, J. B., Taubman, M., Bloomfield, S., Palos-Rafuse, L., Leaf, R., McEachin, J., & Oppenheim, M. L. (2009).
Increasing social skills and pro-social behavior for three children diagnosed with autism through the
use of a teaching package. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3(1), 275-289.
doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2008.07.003
Lopata, C., Thomeer, M. L., Volker, M. A., Toomey, J. A., Nida, R. E., Lee, G. K., ... Rodgers, J. D. (2010). RCT of
a manualized social treatment for high-functioning autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 40(11), 1297-1310. doi: 10.1007/s10803-010-0989-8
Owens, G., Granader, Y., Humphrey, A., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2008). LEGO therapy and the social use of lan-
guage programme: An evaluation of two social skills interventions for children with high functioning
autism and Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(10), 1944-1957.
doi: 10.1007/s10803-008-0590-6
Ozonoff, S., & Miller, J. N. (1995). Teaching theory of mind: A new approach to social skills training for
individuals with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25(4), 415-433.
doi: 10.1007/BF02179376
Palmen, A., Didden, R., & Arts, M. (2008). Improving question asking in high-functioning adolescents
with autism spectrum disorders: Effectiveness of small-group training. Autism, 12(1), 83-98. doi:
10.1177/1362361307085265
Ryan, C., & Charragin, C. N. (2010). Teaching emotion recognition skills to children with autism. Journal of
Yang, N. K., Schaller, J. L., Huang, T. A., Wang, M. H., & Tsai, S. F. (2003). Enhancing appropriate social be-
haviors for children with autism in general education classrooms: An analysis of six cases. Education
and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38(4), 405-416.
Social Skills Training Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Fettig, A. (2013). Social skills training (SST) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Gra-
Adapted from:
Collet-Klingenberg, L. (2009). Overview of social skills groups. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Waisman Center, The
Structured Play Groups
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Structured play groups (SPG) are interventions using small groups to teach a broad range of
outcomes. SPG activities are characterized by their occurrences in a defined area and with a de-
fined activity, specific selection of typically developing peers to be in the group, clear delineation
of theme and roles by adult leading the, and prompting or scaffolding as needed to support the
students performance related to the goals of the activity.
Qualifying Evidence
SPG meets evidence-based criteria with 2 group design and 2 single case design studies.
Ages
According to the evidence-based studies, this intervention has been effective for elementary
school-age learners (6-11 years) with ASD.
Outcomes
SPG can be used effectively to address social, communication, behavior, play, school-readiness,
and academic skills.

Legoff, D. B., & Sherman, M. (2006). Long-term outcome of social skills intervention based on interactive
LEGO play. Autism, 10(4), 317-329. doi: 10.1177/1362361306064403
Loftin, R. L., Odom, S. L., & Lantz, J. F. (2008). Social interaction and repetitive motor behaviors. Journal of
Owens, G., Granader, Y., Humphrey, A., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2008). LEGO therapy and the social use of lan-
guage programme: An evaluation of two social skills interventions for children with high functioning
autism and Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(10), 1944-1957.
doi: 10.1007/s10803-008-0590-6
Wolfberg, P. J., & Schuler, A. L. (1993). Integrated play groups: A model for promoting the social and cogni-
tive dimensions of play in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
23(3), 467-489. doi: 10.1007/BF01046051
Structured Play Groups Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Odom, S. L. (2013). Structured play groups (SPG) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter
Disorders.
Task Analysis
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Task analysis (TA) involves breaking a complex or chained behavioral skill into smaller compo-
nents in order to teach a skill. The learner can be taught to perform individual steps of the chain
until the entire skill is mastered (also called chaining). Other practices, such as reinforcement,
video modeling, or time delay, should be used to facilitate learning of the smaller steps. As the
smaller steps are mastered, the learner becomes more and more independent in his/her ability to
perform the larger skill.
Qualifying Evidence
TA meets evidence-based criteria with 8 single case design studies.
Ages
(age 35 years) to middle school-age learners (1214 years) with ASD.
Outcomes
TA can be used effectively to address social, communication, joint attention, academic, motor,
and adaptive skills.

Browder, D. M., Trela, K., & Jimenez, B. (2007). Training teachers to follow a task analysis to engage middle
school students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities in grade-appropriate literature.
Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22(4), 206-219.
doi: 10.1177/10883576070220040301
Martins, M. P., & Harris, S. L. (2006). Teaching children with autism to respond to joint attention initiations.
Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 28(1), 51-68. doi: 10.1300/J019v28n01_04
Morse, T. E., & Schuster, J. W. (2000). Teaching elementary students with moderate intellectual disabilities
how to shop for groceries. Exceptional Children, 66(2), 273-288.
Parker, D., & Kamps, D. (2011). Effects of task analysis and self-monitoring for children with autism in
multiple social settings. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 26(3), 131-142.
doi: 10.1177/1088357610376945
Tarbox, J., Madrid, W., Aguilar, B., Jacobo, W., & Schiff, A. (2009). Use of chaining to increase complexity of
echoics in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(4), 901-906.
doi:10.1901/jaba.2009.42-901
Tekin-Iftar, E., & Birkan, B. (2010). Small group instruction for students with autism: General case training
and observational learning. The Journal of Special Education, 44(1), 50-63.
doi: 10.1177/0022466908325219
Ylmaz, I., Birkan, B., Konukman, F., & Erkan, M. (2005). Using a constant time delay procedure to teach
aquatic play skills to children with autism. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities,
40(2), 171-182.
Ylmaz, I., Konukman, F., Birkan, B., Ozen, A., Yanardag, M., & Camursoy, I. (2010). Effects of constant
time delay procedure on the Halliwicks method of swimming rotation skills for children with autism.
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 124-135.
Task analysis Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Fleury, V. P. (2013). Task analysis (TA) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham
Adapted from:
Franzone, E. (2009). Overview of task analysis. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Waisman Center, The National Profes-
sional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Technology-Aided Instruction and Intervention
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Technology-aided instruction and intervention (TAII) are those in which technology is the
central feature of an intervention that supports the goal or outcome for the student. Technology is
defined as any electronic item/equipment/application/or virtual network that is used intention-
ally to increase/maintain, and/or improve daily living, work/productivity, and recreation/leisure
capabilities of adolescents with autism spectrum disorders (Odom, Thompson, et al., 2013). TAII
incorporates a broad range of devices, such as speech-generating devices, smart phones, tables,
computed-assisted instructional programs, and virtual networks. The common features of these
interventions are the technology itself (as noted) and instructional procedures for learning to use
the technology or supporting its use in appropriate contexts.
Qualifying Evidence
TAII meets evidence-based criteria with 9 group design and 11 single case design studies.
Ages
Outcomes
TAII can be used effectively to address social, communication, behavior, joint attention, cognitive,
school-readiness, academic, motor, adaptive, and vocational skills.

Beaumont, R., & Sofronoff, K. (2008). A multicomponent social skills intervention for children with As-
perger syndrome: The Junior Detective Training Program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
49(7), 743-753. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01920.x
Choi, H., OReilly, M., Sigafoos, J., & Lancioni, G. (2010). Teaching requesting and rejecting sequences to
four children with developmental disabilities using augmentative and alternative communication.
Research in Developmental Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 31(2), 560-567. doi: 10.1016/j.
rasd.2010.08.005
Cihak, D. F., Wright, R., & Ayres, K. M. (2010). Use of self-modeling static-picture prompts via a handheld
computer to facilitate self-monitoring in the general education classroom. Education and Training in
Faja, S., Aylward, E., Bernier, R., & Dawson, G. (2007). Becoming a face expert: A computerized face-training
program for high-functioning individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Developmental Neuropsy-
chology, 33(1), 1-24. doi: 10.1080/87565640701729573
Golan, O., Ashwin, E., Granader, Y., McClintock, S., Day, K., Leggett, V., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2010). Enhancing
emotion recognition in children with autism spectrum conditions: An intervention using animated
vehicles with real emotional faces. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(3), 269-279.
doi: 10.1007/s10803-009-0862-9
Golan, O., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2006). Systemizing empathy: Teaching adults with Asperger syndrome or
high-functioning autism to recognize complex emotions using interactive multimedia. Development
and Psychopathology, 18(2), 591-617. doi: 10.1017/S0954579406060305
Hopkins, I. M., Gower, M. W., Perez, T. A., Smith, D. S., Amthor, F. R., Wimsatt, F. C., & Biasini, F. J. (2011). Ava-
tar assistant: Improving social skills in students with an ASD through a computer-based intervention.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(11), 1543-1555. doi: 10.1007/s10803-011-1179-z
Kagohara, D. M., van der Meer, L., Achmadi, D., Green, V. A., OReilly, M. F., Mulloy, A., ... & Sigafoos, J. (2010).
Behavioral intervention promotes successful use of an iPod-based communication device by an ado-
lescent with autism. Clinical Case Studies, 9(5), 328-338. doi: 10.1177/1534650110379633
Kodak, T., Fisher, W. W., Clements, A., & Bouxsein, K. J. (2011). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on
correct responding and procedural integrity during early intensive behavioral intervention. Research
in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(1), 640-647.
Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Cronin, B. A. (2006). The effects of presenting high-preference items, paired
with choice, via computer-based video programming on task completion of students with autism. Fo-
cus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 21(1), 7-13. doi: 10.1177/10883576060210010201
Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Seid, N. H. (2009). Using a personal digital assistant to increase independent
task completion by students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 39(10), 1420-1434. doi: 10.1007/s10803-009-0761-0
Mechling, L. C., & Savidge, E. J. (2011). Using a personal digital assistant to increase completion of novel
tasks and independent transitioning by students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 41(6), 687-704. doi: 10.1007/s10803-010-1088-6
Mineo, B. A., Ziegler, W., Gill, S., & Salkin, D. (2009). Engagement with electronic screen media among
students with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(1), 172-
187. doi: 10.1007/s10803-008-0616-0
Moore, M., & Calvert, S. (2000). Brief report: Vocabulary acquisition for children with autism: Teacher or
computer instruction. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30(4), 359-362.
doi: 10.1023/A:1005535602064
Myles, B. S., Ferguson, H., & Hagiwara, T. (2007). Using a personal digital assistant to improve the record-
ing of homework assignments by an adolescent with Asperger syndrome. Focus on Autism and Other
Richter, S. & Test, D. (2011). Effects of multimedia social stories on knowledge of adult outcomes and op-
portunities among transition-aged youth with significant cognitive disabilities. Education and Train-
ing in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46(3), 410-424.
Silver, M., & Oakes, P. (2001). Evaluation of a new computer intervention to teach people with autism or
Asperger syndrome to recognize and predict emotions in others. Autism, 5(3), 299-316.
doi: 10.1177/1362361301005003007
Soares, D. A., Vannest, K. J., & Harrison, J. (2009). Computer aided selfmonitoring to increase academic
production and reduce selfinjurious behavior in a child with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 24(3),
171-183.
Stromer, R., Mackay, H. A., Howell, S. R., McVay, A. A., & Flusser, D. (1996). Teaching computer-based spell-
ing to individuals with developmental and hearing disabilities: Transfer of stimulum control to writ-
ing tasks. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(1), 25-42. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-25
Whalen, C., Moss, D., Ilan, A. B., Vaupel, M., Fielding, P., Macdonald, K., ... Symon, J. (2010). Efficacy of
TeachTown: Basics computer-assisted intervention for the intensive comprehensive autism program
in Los Angeles unified school district. Autism, 14(3), 179-197. doi: 10.1177/1362361310363282
Technology-Aided Instruction and Intervention Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Odom, S. L. (2013). Technology-aided instruction and intervention (TAII) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North
Time Delay
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Time delay (TD) is a practice used to systematically fade the use of prompts during instructional
activities. With this procedure, a brief delay is provided between the initial instruction and any
additional instructions or prompts. The evidence-based research focuses on two types of time
delay procedures: progressive and constant. With progressive time delay, the adult gradually
increases the waiting time between an instruction and any prompts that might be used to elicit
a response from a learner with ASD. For example, a teacher provides a prompt immediately after
an instruction when a learner with ASD is initially learning a skill. As the learner becomes more
proficient at using the skill, the teacher gradually increases the waiting time between the instruc-
tion and the prompt. In constant time delay, a fixed amount of time is always used between the
instruction and the prompt as the learner becomes more proficient at using the new skill. Time
delay is always used in conjunction with a prompting procedure (e.g., least-to-most prompting,
simultaneous prompting, graduated guidance).
Qualifying Evidence
TD meets evidence-based criteria with 12 single case design studies.
Ages
Outcomes
TD can be used effectively to address social, communication, behavior, joint attention, play, cogni-
tive, school-readiness, academic, motor, and adaptive skills.

Collins, B. C., Hager, K. L., & Creech Galloway, C. (2011). Addition of functional content during core content
instruction with students with moderate disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Develop-
mental Disabilities, 46(1), 22-39.
Ingenmey, R., & Houten, R. (1991). Using time delay to promote spontaneous speech in an autistic child.
Ingvarsson, E. T., & Hollobaugh, T. (2010). Acquisition of intraverbal behavior: Teaching children with
autism to mand for answers to questions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(1), 1-17.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2010.43-1
Leung, J. P. (1994). Teaching spontaneous requests to children with autism using a time delay procedure
with multi-component toys. Journal of Behavioral Education, 4(1), 21-31. doi: 10.1007/BF01560506
Leung, J. P., & Chan, O. T. (1993). Teaching spontaneous verbal requests to Chinese children with autism
using a time delay procedure. Bulletin of the Hong Kong Psychological Society.
Liber, D. B., Frea, W. D., & Symon, J. B. (2008). Using time-delay to improve social play skills with peers for
doi: 10.1007/s10803-007-0395-z
Matson, J. L., Sevin, J. A., Fridley, D., & Love, S. R. (1990). Increasing spontaneous language in three autistic
children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23(2), 227-233. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1990.23-227
Miller, C., Collins, B. C., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2002). Using a naturalistic time delay procedure to teach
nonverbal adolescents with moderate-to-severe mental disabilities to initiate manual signs. Journal of
Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 14(3), 247-261. doi: 10.1023/A:1016072321661
Reichow, B., & Wolery, M. (2011). Comparison of progressive prompt delay with and without instructive
feedback. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(2), 327-340. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-327
Rogers, L., Hemmeter, M. L., & Wolery, M. (2010). Using a constant time delay procedure to teach founda-
tional swimming skills to children with autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 30(2),
102-111. doi: 10.1177/0271121410369708
Taylor, B. A., & Harris, S. L. (1995). Teaching children with autism to seek informationacquisition of novel
information and generalization of responding. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28(1), 3-14.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-3
Venn, M. L., Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., Morris, A., DeCesare, L. D., & Cuffs, M. S. (1993). Embedding instruc-
tion in art activities to teach preschoolers with disabilities to imitate their peers. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 8(3), 277-294. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(05)80068-7
Time Delay Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Fleury, V. P. (2013). Time delay (TD) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham
Adapted from:
Neitzel, J. (2009). Overview of time delay. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child
Video Modeling
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Video modeling (VM) is a method of instruction that uses video recording and display equip-
ment to provide a visual model of the targeted behavior or skill. The model is shown to the
learner, who then has an opportunity to perform the target behavior, either in the moment or at
a later point in time. Types of video modeling include basic video modeling, video self-modeling,
point-of-view video modeling, and video prompting. Basic video modeling is the most common
and involves recording someone besides the learner engaging in the target behavior or skill. Video
self-modeling is used to record the learner displaying the target skill or behavior and may involve
editing to remove adult prompts. Point-of-view video modeling is when the target behavior or
skill is recorded from the perspective of what the learner will see when he or she performs the
response. Video prompting involves breaking the behavior into steps and recording each step with
incorporated pauses during which the learner may view and then attempt a step before viewing
and attempting subsequent steps. Video prompting can be implemented with other, self, or point-
of-view models. Video modeling strategies have been used in isolation and also in conjunction
with other intervention components such as prompting and reinforcement strategies.
Qualifying Evidence
VM meets evidence-based criteria with 1 group design and 31 single case design studies.
Ages
years) to young adults (1922) years with ASD.
Outcomes
VM can be used effectively to address social, communication, behavior, joint attention, play, cog-
nitive, school-readiness, academic, motor, adaptive, and vocational skills.

Akmanoglu, N., & Tekin-Iftar, E. (2011). Teaching children with autism how to respond to the lures of
strangers. Autism, 15(2), 205-222. doi: 10.1177/1362361309352180
Allen, K. D., Wallace, D. P., Greene, D. J., Bowen, S. L., & Burke, R. V. (2010). Community-based vocational
instruction using videotaped modeling for young adults with autism spectrum disorders performing
in air-inflated mascots. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25(3), 186-192.
doi: 10.1177/1088357610377318
Apple, A. L., Billingsley, F., Schwartz, I. S., & Carr, E. G. (2005). Effects of video modeling alone and with
self-management on compliment-giving behaviors of children with high-functioning ASD. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(1), 33-46. doi: 10.1177/10983007050070010401
Buggey, T., Hoomes, G., Sherberger, M. E., & Williams, S. (2011). Facilitating social initiations of preschool-
ers with autism spectrum disorders using video self-modeling. Focus on Autism and Other Develop-
mental Disabilities, 26(1), 25-36. doi: 10.1177/1088357609344430
Buggey, T., Toombs, K., Gardener, P., & Cervetti, M. (1999). Training responding behaviors in students with
autism using videotaped self-modeling. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1(4), 205-214.
doi: 10.1177/109830079900100403
Cannella-Malone, H. I., Fleming, C., Chung, Y. C., Wheeler, G. M., Basbagill, A. R., & Singh, A. H. (2011).
Teaching daily living skills to seven individuals with severe intellectual disabilities: A comparison of
video prompting to video modeling. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13(3), 144-153.
doi: 10.1177/1098300710366593
Charlop, M. H., Dennis, B., Carpenter, M. H., & Greenberg, A. L. (2010). Teaching socially expressive behav-
iors to children with autism through video modeling. Education and Treatment of Children, 33(3),
371-393. doi: 10.1353/etc.0.0104
Charlop-Christy, M. H., & Daneshvar, S. (2003). Using video modeling to teach perspective taking to chil-
dren with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(1), 12-21.
doi: 10.1177/10983007030050010101
Charlop-Christy, M. H., Le, L., & Freeman, K. A. (2000). A comparison of video modeling with in vivo
modeling for teaching children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30(6),
537-552. doi: 10.1023/A:1005635326276
Cihak, D. F. (2011). Comparing pictorial and video modeling activity schedules during transitions for
students with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(1), 433-441.
doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2010.06.006
Cihak, D., Fahrenkrog, C., Ayres, K. M., & Smith, C. (2010). The use of video modeling via a video iPod and
a system of least prompts to improve transitional behaviors for students with autism spectrum dis-
orders in the general education classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(2), 103-115.
doi: 10.1177/1098300709332346
Coyle, C., & Cole, P. (2004). A videotaped self-modelling and self-monitoring treatment program to de-
crease off-task behaviour in children with autism. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability,
29(1), 3-16. doi: 10.1080/08927020410001662642
DAteno, P., Mangiapanello, K., & Taylor, B. A. (2003). Using video modeling to teach complex play sequenc-
es to a preschooler with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(1), 5-11.
doi: 10.1177/10983007030050010801
Goodson, J., Sigafoos, J., OReilly, M., Cannella, H., & Lancioni, G. E. (2007). Evaluation of a video-based
error correction procedure for teaching a domestic skill to individuals with developmental disabili-
ties. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 28(5), 458-467. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2006.06.002
Haring, T. G., Breen, C. G., Weiner, J., Kennedy, C. H., & Bednersh, F. (1995). Using videotape modeling to
facilitate generalized purchasing skills. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5(1), 29-53.
doi: 10.1007/BF02110213
Hine, J. F., & Wolery, M. (2006). Using point-of-view video modeling to teach play to preschoolers with au-
tism. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 26(2), 83-93. doi: 10.1177/02711214060260020301
Kleeberger, V., & Mirenda, P. (2010). Teaching generalized imitation skills to a preschooler with autism
using video modeling. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(2), 116-127.
doi: 10.1177/1098300708329279
Kroeger, K. A., Schultz, J. R., & Newsom, C. (2007). A comparison of two group-delivered social skills pro-
grams for young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(5), 808-817.
doi: 10.1007/s10803-006-0207-x
LeBlanc, L. A., Coates, A. M., Daneshvar, S., CharlopChristy, M. H., Morris, C., & Lancaster, B. M. (2003).
Using video modeling and reinforcement to teach perspectivetaking skills to children with autism.
Maione, L., & Mirenda, P. (2006). Effects of video modeling and video feedback on peer-directed social
language skills of a child with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(2), 106-118.
Marcus, A., & Wilder, D. A. (2009). A comparison of peer video modeling and self video modeling to teach
textual responses in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(2), 335-341.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-335
MarzulloKerth, D., Reeve, S. A., Reeve, K. F., & Townsend, D. B. (2011). Using multipleexemplar training to
teach a generalized repertoire of sharing to children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
44(2), 279-294. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-279
Nikopoulos, C. K., Canavan, C., & Nikopoulou-Smyrni, P. (2009). Generalized effects of video modeling on
establishing instructional stimulus control in children with autism results of a preliminary study.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(4), 198-207. doi: 10.1177/1098300708325263
Nikopoulos, C. K., & Keenan, M. (2003). Promoting social initiation in children with autism using video
modeling. Behavioral Interventions, 18(2), 87-108. doi: 10.1002/bin.129
Nikopoulos, C. K., & Keenan, M. (2004). Effects of video modeling on social initiations by children with
Nikopoulos, C. K., & Keenan, M. (2007). Using video modeling to teach complex social sequences to chil-
dren with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(4), 678-693.
doi: 10.1007/s10803-006-0195-x
Plavnick, J. B., & Ferreri, S. J. (2011). Establishing verbal repertoires in children with autism using function
based video modeling. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(4), 747-766.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-747
Rayner, C. (2011). Teaching students with autism to tie a shoelace knot using video prompting and back-
ward chaining. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 14(6), 339-347.
doi: 10.3109/17518423.2011.606508
Reeve, S. A., Reeve, K. F., Townsend, D. B., & Poulson, C. L. (2007). Establishing a generalized repertoire of
helping behavior in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(1), 123-136.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2007.11-05
Sherer, M., Pierce, K. L., Paredes, S., Kisacky, K. L., Ingersoll, B., & Schreibman, L. (2001). Enhancing
conversation skills in children with autism via video technology: Which is better, self or other as a
model? Behavior Modification, 25(1), 140-158. doi: 10.1177/0145445501251008
Taylor, B. A., Levin, L., & Jasper, S. (1999). Increasing play-related statements in children with autism toward
their siblings: Effects of video modeling. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 11(3),
253-264. doi: 10.1023/A:1021800716392
Wert, B. Y., & Neisworth, J. T. (2003). Effects of video self-modeling on spontaneous requesting in children
with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(1), 30-34.
Video Modeling Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Plavnick, J. B. (2013). Video modeling (VM) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Gra-
Adapted from:
Franzone, E., & Collet-Klingenberg, L. (2008). Overview of video modeling. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Waisman
Center, The National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Visual Supports
Fact Sheet
Brief Description
Visual supports (VS) are concrete cues that provide information about an activity, routine, or
expectation and/or support skill demonstration. Visual supports can provide assistance across
activity and setting, and can take on a number of forms and functions. These include but are not
limited to: photographs, icons, drawings, written words, objects, environmental arrangement,
schedules, graphic organizers, organizational systems, and scripts. Visual supports are commonly
used to: 1) organize learning environments, 2) establish expectations around activities, routines,
or behaviors (e.g., visual schedules, visual instructions, structured work systems, scripts, power
cards), 3) provide cues or reminders (e.g., conversation and initiation cues, choice making sup-
ports, visual timers, finished box), and 4) provide preparation or instruction (e.g., video priming,
video feedback).
Qualifying Evidence
Visual supports meet evidence-based criteria with 18 single case design studies.
Ages
Outcomes
Visual supports can be used effectively to address social, communication, behavior, play, cogni-
tive, school-readiness, academic, motor, and adaptive skills.

Angell, M. E., Nicholson, J. K., Watts, E. H., & Blum, C. (2011). Using a multicomponent adapted power
card strategy to decrease latency during interactivity transitions for three children with devel-
opmental disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 26(4), 206-217. doi:
10.1177/1088357611421169
Betz, A., Higbee, T. S., & Reagon, K. A. (2008). Using joint activity schedules to promote peer engagement
in preschoolers with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(2), 237-241. doi: 10.1901/
jaba.2008.41-237
Blum-Dimaya, A., Reeve, S. A., Reeve, K. F., & Hoch, H. (2010). Teaching children with autism to play a video
game using activity schedules and game-embedded simultaneous video modeling. Education and
Treatment of Children, 33(3), 351-370. doi: 10.1353/etc.0.0103
Bock, M. A. (1999). Sorting laundry: Categorization strategy application to an authentic learning activity by
children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14(4), 220-230.
doi: 10.1177/108835769901400404
Bryan, L. C., & Gast, D. L. (2000). Teaching on-task and on-schedule behaviors to high-functioning children
with autism via picture activity schedules. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30(6),
553-567. doi: 10.1023/A:1005687310346
Cale, S. I., Carr, E. G., Blakeley-Smith, A., & Owen-DeSchryver, J. S. (2009). Context-based assessment and
intervention for problem behavior in children with autism spectrum disorder. Behavior Modification,
33(6), 707-742. doi: 10.1177/0145445509340775
Cihak, D. F. (2011). Comparing pictorial and video modeling activity schedules during transitions for stu-
dents with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(1), 433-441.
doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2010.06.006
Hughes, C., Golas, M., Cosgriff, J., Brigham, N., Edwards, C., & Cashen, K. (2011). Effects of a social skills
intervention among high school students with intellectual disabilities and autism and their general
education peers. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(1-2), 46-61.
doi: 10.2511/rpsd.36.1-2.46
Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (1998). Social interaction skills for children with autism: A script-fading
procedure for beginning readers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31(2), 191-202. doi: 10.1901/
jaba.1998.31-191
MacDuff, G. S., Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (1993). Teaching children with autism to use photograph-
ic activity schedules: Maintenance and generalization of complex response chains. Journal of Applied
Matson, J. L., Sevin, J. A., Box, M. L., Francis, K. L., & Sevin, B. M. (1993). An evaluation of two methods for
increasing self-initiated verbalizations in autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26(3),
389-398. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1993.26-389
Morrison, R. S., Sainato, D. M., Benchaaban, D., & Endo, S. (2002). Increasing play skills of children with
autism using activity schedules and correspondence training. Journal of early intervention, 25(1),
58-72. doi: 10.1177/105381510202500106
Murdock, L. C., & Hobbs, J. Q. (2011). Tell me what you did today: A visual cueing strategy for children with
ASD. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 26(3), 162-172.
doi: 10.1177/1088357611405191
OReilly, M., Sigafoos, J., Lancioni, G., Edrisinha, C., & Andrews, A. (2005). An examination of the effects of
a classroom activity schedule on levels of self-injury and engagement for a child with severe autism.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35(3), 305-311. doi: 10.1007/s10803-005-3294-1
Peterson, L., McLaughlin, T. F., Weber, K. P., & Anderson, H. (2008). The effects of model, lead, and test
technique with visual prompts paired with a fading procedure to teach where to a 13-year-old
echolalic boy with autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 20(1), 31-39.
doi: 10.1007/s10882-007-9077-1
Stringfield, S. G., Luscre, D., & Gast, D. L. (2011). Effects of a story map on accelerated reader postreading
test scores in students with high-functioning autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Dis-
abilities, 26(4), 218-229. doi: 10.1177/1088357611423543
Thiemann, K. S., & Goldstein, H. (2004). Effects of peer training and written text cueing on social commu-
nication of school-age children with pervasive developmental disorder. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 47(1), 126-144. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2004/012)
West, E. A. (2008). Effects of verbal cues versus pictorial cues on the transfer of stimulus control for
children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 23(4), 229-241. doi:
10.1177/1088357608324715
Visual Supports Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Hume, K. (2013). Visual supports (VS) fact sheet. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham
Adapted from:
Hume, K. (2008). Overview of visual supports. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child

Autism 2014-EBP-Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Autism 2014-EBP-Report PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Autism 2014-EBP-Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence-Based

Connie Wong, Samuel L. Odom,

Autism Evidence-Based Practice Review Group

Graphic design: Gina Harrison, FPG Publications Office

This report is available online at

Advancing knowledge. Enhancing lives.

Khaled Alkherainej Miriam Allen Sheryl Alvies

Comprehensive Treatment Models

Focused Intervention Practices

Previous Literature Reviews of

National Professional Development Center on ASD (NPDC)

Similarities Between The Two Reviews

Rationale for Current NPDC Review

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria for Studies in the Review

impairment), sensory impairment (e.g., hearing or visual im-

Review Criteria and Protocols

Final Review Process

Analysis and Grouping Literature

lished in the first NPDC review (Odom, Collet-Klingenberg, et

tive method, a category and definition was created for a practice

Design Types Figure 2. Study Designs

Also, Appendix 2 contains a fact sheet for Cognitive

Other Practices with Empirical Support

Table 10. Other Focused Intervention Practices with Some Support

Touch Therapy Systematic touching or massage Field, et al. (1997) Insufficient

Idiosyncratic Behavioral Intervention Package

Other Practices with Empirical Support

Implications for Practice

Implications for Future Research

Instructions: Read each item and check the appropriate box.

Was the control/comparison condition(s) described?

Was attrition NOT a significant threat to internal validity?

Instructions: Read each item and check the appropriate box.

*Alternating treatment designs require at least 4 repetitions of the alternating sequence.

Research Studies Providing Evidence

Anticedent Based Intervention Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Research Studies Providing Evidence

Cognitive Behavioral Intervention Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Research Studies Providing Evidence

Differential Reinforcement of Alternative, Incompatible, or Other Behavior Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Research Studies Poviding Evidence

Discrete Trial Teaching Fact Sheet suggested citation

Research Studies Poviding Evidence

Exercise Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Research Studies Poviding Evidence

Extinction Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Research Studies Poviding Evidence

Functional Behavior Assessment Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Research Studies Poviding Evidence

Functional Communication Training Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Research Studies Poviding Evidence

Modeling Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Research Studies Poviding Evidence

Naturalistic Intervention Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Research Studies Poviding Evidence

Parent-Implemented Intervention Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Research Studies Poviding Evidence

Peer-Mediated Instruction and Intervention Fact Sheetsuggested citation

Research Studies Poviding Evidence