Although many teaching techniques for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) require the instructor to gain the child's eye contact prior to delivering an instructional demand, the literature contains notably few procedures that reliably produce this outcome. To address this problem, we evaluated the effects of a sequential model for increasing eye contact in children with ASD. The model included the following phases: contingent praise only (for eye contact), contingent edibles plus praise, stimulus prompts plus contingent edibles and praise, contingent video and praise, schedule thinning, and maintenance evaluations for up to 2 years. Results indicated that the procedures increased eye contact for 20 participants (one additional participant did not require consequences). For 16 participants, praise (alone) was not sufficient to support eye contact; however, high levels of eye contact were typically maintained with these participants when therapists used combined schedules of intermittent edibles or video and continuous praise. We discuss some limitations of this model and directions for future research on increasing eye contact for children with ASD.

Cook et al. recently described a progressive model for teaching children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to provide eye contact with an instructor following a name call. The model included the following phases: contingent praise only, contingent edibles plus praise, stimulus prompts plus contingent edibles and praise, contingent video and praise, schedule thinning, generalization assessments, and maintenance evaluations. In the present study, we evaluated the extent to which modifications to the model were needed to train 15 children with ASD to engage in eye contact. Results show that 11 of 15 participants acquired eye contact with the progressive model; however, eight participants required one or more procedural modifications to the model to acquire eye contact. In addition, the four participants who did not acquire eye contact received one or more modifications. Results also show that participants who acquired eye contact with or without modifications continued to display high levels of the behavior during follow-up probes. We discuss directions for future research with and limitations of this progressive model.

Although electronic devices may enhance the effectiveness of some behavioral interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders, such devices may also give rise to problem behavior such as repetitious button pressing (i.e., object stereotypy). Results of this study showed that a child with autism spectrum disorder only displayed high levels of object stereotypy on an iPad™ when presses generated auditory output. Subsequently, results showed that when the participant used the iPad™ without auditory output, his stereotypical behavior decreased and his manding for various items simultaneously increased.

Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often present with challenging behaviors such as aggression, tantrums, or noncompliance. Behavior analytic interventions are considered evidence‐based for decreasing challenging behaviors and may include a combination of strategies to teach replacement behaviors and prevent and respond to challenging behaviors. However, multi‐component interventions are often implemented in treatment settings by professionals and effects may not generalize to the home. Little research has explored the levels of treatment integrity with which multi‐component interventions are implemented by parents. This study evaluated the use of behavior skills training (BST) with ongoing coaching to train parents of two children with ASD to implement multi‐component behavioral interventions in the home to decrease challenging behaviors. Treatment integrity was monitored for each treatment component, and attempts were made to minimize barriers to treatment integrity. Results support the use of BST with ongoing coaching. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.