ArticleAutism & developmental language impairments
Teaching receptive vocabulary to two autistic children: A replicated, clinic-based, single case experimental design.
Article in Autism & developmental language impairments. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: This study was conducted in a clinical setting with the aim of replicating previously used procedures for teaching receptive vocabulary. Researchers increased the number of vocabulary words and maintained use of match-to-sample (MtS), prompting, and reinforcement procedures. Researchers were also interested in the efficacy of the intervention from caregivers' perspectives. Methods: Using a concurrent multiple baseline design, two autistic preschoolers with receptive language impairment were taught to identify 30 common objects. MtS, prompting, and reinforcement procedures were individualized to support each child. Maintenance checks and generalization probes were completed after a predetermined number of intervention sessions (i.e. three or four clinic sessions). A social validity questionnaire was completed by parents following the final maintenance check. Results: Receptive object identification improved significantly for both participants. Despite exposure to vocabulary targets for only three or four sessions, they generalized the vocabulary targets to non-identical pictures and maintained words at maintenance checks. Participants were most successful when researchers individualized prompting and reinforcement. Conclusion: MtS, prompting, and reinforcement were effective procedures for improving object identification, even with a limited number of intervention sessions. To support varying learner profiles, modifying prompting and reinforcement procedures was necessary. Caregivers of both participants reported positive improvements in areas such as communication, attention, and behaviors. Implications: This replicated study provides support for MtS, prompting, and reinforcement as means of teaching receptive vocabulary to autistic preschoolers in a clinical setting. The materials used were simple and cost-effective. Overall, this study outlines and supports a flexible and effective evidence-based practice to teach receptive language to autistic children.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.