The Acquisition of Peer Manding Using a Speech-Generating Device in Naturalistic Classroom Routines
Elizabeth R. Lorah; Jessica Miller; Brenna Griffen (2021). Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, v33 n4 p619-631. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1431375
-
examining3Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Practice Guide (findings for Interrupted chain procedure and a time delay with full physical prompts - Lorah et al. (2021))
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a SCD design where the independent variable is manipulated by the researcher, each outcome is measured systematically over time by multiple assessors with a sufficient number of assessment points and inter-assessor agreement, but there are an insufficient number of phases and/or assessments per phase to meet 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.
-
Female: 33%
Male: 67% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Arkansas
-
Race Asian 33% Other or unknown 33% White 33% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 33% Not Hispanic or Latino 67% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
Participants attended an Applied Behavior Analysis preschool group for 2 1/2 hours a day for three days a week. The intervention was implemented in an arts and crafts center in the classroom.
Study sample
Participants included three preschool students who were three or four years old and had a primary clinical diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. Each student had limited communication skills and their primary mode of communication was an iPad-based speech-generating device.
Intervention Group
During each session, the focal child sat in a chair directly across from a peer listener. The instructor placed an iPad next to the child and asked the child to complete an art activity. The child could only complete the activity using something that the peer possessed (for example, glue). If the child requested the item with the iPad within three seconds, the peer was prompted to provide the item. If after three seconds, no mand occurred, the instructor used a full physical prompt to teach the child to request the item. Each intervention session included five opportunities for the child to request an item. The intervention was administered over 5-13 sessions (depending on participant).
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case designs. During each baseline session, the focal child sat in a chair directly across from a peer listener. The instructor placed an iPad next to the child and asked the child to complete an art activity. The child could only complete the activity using something that the peer possessed (for example, glue). If the child requested the item with the iPad within three seconds, the peer was prompted to provide the item. If after three seconds, no mand occurred, the opportunity to request the item ended. Each baseline session included five opportunities for the child to mand.
Support for implementation
The primary investigator trained the instructors before beginning the study.
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).