Discrete Trial Instruction vs. Mand Training for Teaching Children With Autism to Make Requests

Abstract

The present study compared the effects of discrete trial instruction (DTI) and mand training on the acquisition of independent requests in 6 children with autism. Two multiple-probe designs across participants were conducted with 3 participants receiving mand training followed by DTI and the other 3 receiving DTI followed by mand training. Eye contact and challenging behaviors were also assessed across conditions. Results indicate that 5 of 6 participants made more independent requests and acquired requesting faster in the mand training condition, had slightly better eye contact in the DTI condition, and fewer challenging behaviors in the mand training condition. Overall, the results indicate that mand training is a more efficient method for teaching children with autism to make requests.

Collateral effects of mand training for children with autism

“…The findings of Jennett et al (2008) and Charlop-Christy et al (2002) provide tenuous empirical support for potential collateral benefits of mand training and also indicate additional research is needed in this area. The study conducted by Charlop-Christy et al demonstrates powerful effects of mand training but does not rule out the possibility that outcomes occurred as a result of the PECS-specific components or that other types of language training procedures, such as request training without EO manipulation, could have similar effects on nontargeted behavior.…”

“…During request training, the target requests produced consequences that had not previously been identified as reinforcers and known EOs were therefore not likely contrived. Thus, the request training condition provided a control to the mand training condition allowing for an experimental analysis of behaviors associated with mand training and acquisition in previous theory and research (Jennett et al, 2008;Sundberg & Michael, 2001). …”

“…Whereas some procedures may embed explicit training of social behavior such as eye contact into the program (Smith, 2001), the same skill may be omitted from mand training (Jennett et al, 2008;Sweeney-Kerwin, Carbone, O'Brien, Zecchin, & Janecky, 2007): possibly due to the assumption cited by Jennett et al that eye contact will occur as a result of pairing the instructor with a dense schedule of reinforcement. This uncertainty could be confusing for consumers who need to determine whether behaviors such as looking at the instructor need to be explicitly taught when mand training is adopted.…”

“…Second, mand training pairs a dense schedule of reinforcement with early language training experiences and the interventionist delivering the training. It has been hypothesized that this pairing process increases the value of interacting with the interventionist, which may have a collateral effect on nontargeted social behavior such as eye contact (Jennett et al, 2008). Additionally, future language training is presumably made easier through increased compliance as a result of reinforcement delivered during previous mand training sessions (Sundberg, 2007).…”

“…However, it is impossible to separate effects of the PECS-specific components, such as physically orienting the speaker toward an adult listener, from procedures that are more typically used when teaching vocal mands to learners with autism (e.g., Hartman & Klatt, 2005). Jennett et al (2008) examined rates of eye contact and problem behaviors when comparing discrete trial training with mand training for teaching children with autism to vocally request preferred stimuli. The discrete trial procedure followed a request training approach whereby EOs were not explicitly captured or contrived and the instructor selected the target response and consequence.…”