A comparison of a modified sequential oral sensory approach to an applied behavior‐analytic approach in the treatment of food selectivity in children with autism spectrum disorder

Abstract

Treatments of pediatric feeding disorders based on applied behavior analysis (ABA) have the most empirical support in the research literature (Volkert & Piazza, 2012); however, professionals often recommend, and caregivers often use, treatments that have limited empirical support. In the current investigation, we compared a modified sequential oral sensory approach (M-SOS; Benson, Parke, Gannon, & Muñoz, 2013) to an ABA approach for the treatment of the food selectivity of 6 children with autism. We randomly assigned 3 children to ABA and 3 children to M-SOS and compared the effects of treatment in a multiple baseline design across novel, healthy target foods. We used a multielement design to assess treatment generalization. Consumption of target foods increased for children who received ABA, but not for children who received M-SOS. We subsequently implemented ABA with the children for whom M-SOS was not effective and observed a potential treatment generalization effect during ABA when M-SOS preceded ABA.

The consecutive controlled case series: Design, data‐analytics, and reporting methods supporting the study of generality

“…Each participant undergoes the procedure assigned, and then his/her participation ends regardless of the outcome (Top Panel). As noted above, studies that could now be characterized as using a randomized parallel‐group CCCS design or something very similar to it have been reported for some time (e.g., Durand & Carr, 1992; Neef et al, ; Peterson et al, ). With the randomized crossover CCCS, participants are randomly assigned to one of two sequences (starting with procedure A then crossing over to procedure B; or vice versa).…”

“…In contrast, treatment gains were lost when novel teachers implemented time‐out. Studies using a combination of SCEDs and randomized group designs have been employed by other researchers to compare treatments for food selectivity (Peterson et al, ), instructional procedures for students (Gast & Wolery, ), and training methods for human service providers (Neef et al, ). The potential value and applications of these mixed SCED‐randomized group designs is discussed in detail below.…”

Treatment of resistance to change in children with autism

“…The research literature is replete with studies showing the beneficial effects of behavioral interventions for reducing lower-order restricted and repetitive behaviors in children with ASD (e.g., Boyd, Woodard, & Bodfish, 2013;Cunningham & Schreibman, 2008;Hagopian, Rooker, Zarcone, Bonner, & Arevalo, 2017;Hausman, Kahng, Farrell, & Mongeon, 2009;Kuhn, Hardesty, & Sweeney, 2009;Lam & Aman, 2007;Leon, Lazarchick, Rooker, & DeLeon, 2013;Saini et al, 2016). However, only a small number of studies have evaluated behavioral interventions for higher-order restricted and repetitive behaviors in ASD (e.g., Fisher, Rodriguez, & Owen, 2013;Rispoli, Camargo, Machalicek, Lang, & Sigafoos, 2014), and many of those have focused on food selectivity (e.g., Peterson, Piazza, & Volkert, 2016;Roth, Williams, & Paul, 2010;Wood, Wolery, & Kaiser, 2009). The existing literature demonstrates that response blocking (i.e., extinction; Wolff, Hupp, & Symons, 2013), differential reinforcement of alternative behaviors (DRA) with extinction (Fisher et al, 2013), and functional communication training with extinction (Rispoli et al, 2014) are all effective ways of treating higher-order restricted and repetitive behaviors.…”

Randomized controlled trial of an applied behavior analytic intervention for food selectivity in children with autism spectrum disorder

“…Hubbard, Anderson, Curtin, Must, and Bandini (2014) found that children with ASD refused more foods than typically developing children based on texture (77% vs. 36%), taste or smell (49% vs. 5%), and brand (15% vs. 1%). Even more alarming is that children with ASD often replace healthier, low calorie foods like fruits and vegetables with calorie-dense, nutritionally deficient foods like chips and candy that are often high in fat, sugar, and sodium (Peterson, Piazza, & Volkert, 2016;Schreck et al, 2004). Calorie-dense and nutritionally deficient diets increase the risk of long-term, severe health problems like chronic constipation, heart disease, obesity, and Type 2 diabetes (Freedman, Dietz, Srinivasan, & Berenson, 1999;Ludwig et al, 1999).…”

“…Presumably, statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups suggest a cause and effect relation between the intervention and the outcome (Kendall, 2003). There are few randomized controlled trials that have assessed applied behavior analytic interventions for pediatric feeding disorders (Peterson et al, 2016;Sharp et al, 2016), and we are aware of no randomized controlled trials that have a welldefined cohort of participants with ASD and food selectivity or that have compared applied behavior analysis to a wait-list control.…”