Establishing a Mand Repertoire Using an Interrupted Chain Procedure with SGD in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder
Elizabeth R. Lorah; Brenna Griffen (2023). Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, v35 n1 p97-110. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1431388
-
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: 67%
Male: 33% -
- 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 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 one university-based preschool classroom in the “task completion” center, which included play activities such as puzzles, shape sorters, ring stackers, and peg boards.
Study sample
The participants included three preschool-aged children, all of whom had a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and limited vocal output capabilities. Participants included two female students and one male student. The study did not report other demographic information.
Intervention Group
The study examined the use of an interrupted chain procedure to teach students how to spontaneously mand (or request) a missing item needed to complete a play activity by using an iPad-based speech-generating device (SGD). Students were taught how to request these missing items, even if they were not visible in the play area. Before beginning the intervention, researchers determined each student's preferred toys and preloaded pictures of target items associated with these toys, as well as three additional pictures of non-preferred toys, onto the SGD. During each session, researchers presented each student with a toy or play activity with at least one missing item, such as a puzzle with missing pieces that were out of sight. After the student finished the play activity and indicated the missing piece—by looking or turning toward the SGD, pointing to the empty space, or reaching for help—the researcher initiated a five-second time delay. After five seconds, if the student did not request the missing item or made an error (such as requesting an incorrect item), the researcher used a full physical prompt to elicit a correct mand. The participant was still provided access to the item and an incorrect response was recorded on the data sheet. The trial was considered concluded after the prompted response. Each session included 10 trials continued in this manner, rotating the top three play activities identified by the student. Intervention sessions lasted until each student met the mastery criterion of three consecutive sessions at or above 80% accurate and independent responding.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case designs. During baseline sessions, researchers presented each student with a toy or play activity with at least one missing item, such as a puzzle with missing pieces that were out of sight. The SGD, which was positioned within 5 inches of the student, contained pictures of the missing target item(s) and three picture-symbols of other toy pieces. After the student completed the play activity and initiated for the missing piece—by orienting toward the SGD, pointing to the empty space, or reaching for assistance—the researcher implemented a five-second time delay. After five seconds, the trial was considered complete if the student did not mand for the missing item. If the participant manded for an incorrect item using the SGD, they were given access to that item and the session was considered complete. If the participant independently and accurately manded for the correct missing item, they were given access to the correct item and the trial was considered complete. Each session consisted of 10 trials that rotated the top three play activities identified from each student's preference assessment.
Support for implementation
Four different interventionists were involved in the study. The primary and secondary experimenters were Board Certified Behavior Analysts and the remaining interventionists were completing the coursework for a master’s degree in special education. The primary experimenter trained the other experimenters on the procedures of the study, to a mastery criterion of 100% fidelity.
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).