Teaching Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder to Mand “Why?”

A systematic review of mands for information

“…Most participants ( n = 72) communicated only vocally. In four experiments (Howlett et al., 2011; Kahlow et al., 2019; Patil et al., 2021; Somers et al., 2014) the vocal participants also used a choice board ( n = 10), and in two experiments (Sundberg et al., 2001) the participants communicated vocally and used sign language ( n = 2). Finally, in four experiments (Carnett & Ingvarsson, 2016; Carnett et al., 2020 [two experiments]; Shillingsburg et al., 2019) the participants used a speech‐generating device ( n = 9).…”

“…To identify preferred items or activities, direct preference assessments were used in 14 experiments (Betz et al., 2010; Endicott & Higbee, 2007; Ingvarsson et al., 2007; Kahlow et al., 2019; Landa et al., 2017; Shillingsburg et al., 2011, 2014, 2016, 2019; Sundberg et al., 2002; Pyles et al., 2021) and both direct and indirect preference assessments were used in eight experiments (Carnett et al., 2020; Howlett et al., 2011; Ingvarsson & Hollobaugh, 2010; Lechago et al., 2010, 2013; Marion et al., 2011; Somers et al., 2014). The authors of six experiments reported using indirect assessments (Marion, Martin, Yu, Buhler, & Kerr, 2012; Roy‐Wsiaki et al., 2010; Shillingsburg & Valentino, 2011; Patil et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2003), with one of those experiments (Williams et al., 2003) identifying objects that were aversive to the participants rather than reinforcing. Furthermore, in four experiments (Jessel & Ingvarsson, 2021; Landa et al., 2020; Valentino et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2000) the authors did not utilize preference assessments to identify reinforcing tangibles, edibles, or activities, and in two experiments (Carnett & Ingvarsson, 2016; Shillingsburg et al., 2018) the authors only provided information for mands for information.…”

“…Researchers should also continue to explore different evocative scenarios to capture the full range of MOs. For example, only three recent studies (Patil et al., 2021; Pyles et al., 2021; Valentino et al., 2019) evaluated scenarios to teach mands for information with the why autoclitic frame. The authors developed different scenarios that had in common two general evocative events: an unusual incident that happened and the experimenter did not provide any explanation for it, and denied access to preferred items.…”

“…Third, our review of the literature since 2015 suggests an increase in the number of articles published on mands for information (i.e., 44% of articles included in this review; further discussed in the Results section). Three of these new studies (Patil et al., 2021; Pyles et al., 2021; Valentino et al., 2019) focused on teaching the autoclitic frame why , which had not been explored in previous studies. Fourth, when teaching mands for information, it is important to condition information as a reinforcer.…”