Comparing matrix sizes when teaching direction following to preschoolers with autism spectrum disorder.
Solano, Alondra S.; Reeve, Sharon A.; Reeve, Kenneth F.; DeBar, Ruth M.; Chata A. Dickson, Chata A.; Milata, Eileen M. (2021). Behavioral Interventions v36 n4 p778-795.
-
examining4Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Practice Guide (findings for Matrix training - Solano et al. (2021))
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please download findings data here.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Male: 100% -
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in a room within home or center-based preschools. The authors did not report the geographic location.
Study sample
The four participants were male preschool students who were diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) by a developmental pediatrician. All received applied behavioral analysis services from private agencies five days a week.
Intervention Group
The intervention was matrix training to teach preschool children with autism spectrum disorder to follow multicomponent spoken directions that combined a known action with an unknown noun (for example, “run to the bells”). The researchers arranged verbs on one axis and nouns on the other in either a 3 × 3 or 5 × 5 matrix and directly taught only the diagonal combinations, with the goal that untaught combinations would emerge through recombination. During training, the experimenter placed three or five target items in a horizontal array about 1.2 meters in front of the child, delivered the vocal direction, and used differential reinforcement plus a constant prompt-delay procedure: training began with a 0-second model prompt delay, then shifted to a 5-second delay after two consecutive sessions of fully prompted correct responding; correct independent responses produced praise and preferred items, while errors led to model prompts and error correction. Sessions lasted about 35 minutes, were conducted 3 to 4 times per week, and each training session included repeated presentations of the trained diagonal targets: 6 trials for the 3 × 3 matrix and 10 trials for the 5 × 5 matrix.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case designs. Baseline sessions were used to assess each child’s performance on all target directions across the matrices, before the intervention began. In these sessions, the experimenter arranged the stimuli in the same general format as the intervention trials, with the items placed about 1.2 meters in front of the participant in either a three-item or five-item horizontal array depending on matrix size, and then provided vocal direction once the child was ready. No prompts, error-correction procedures, and or reinforcement was provided. To help maintain participation, the experimenter interspersed one mastered task after each target trial, selected from skills already known to the child (such as answering safety questions), and delivered praise for correct responding and attending behavior (such as eye contact). These sessions measured initial independent responding to the target multicomponent directions without additional instructional support.
Support for implementation
No additional information was provided.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).