Establishing a Generalized Repertoire of Initiating Bids for Joint Attention in Children with Autism
Gomes, Sandra R., Reeve, Sharon A., Brothers, Kevin J., Reeve, Kenneth F., & Sidener, Tina M. (2020). Behavior modification, 44(3), 394–428.
-
examining4Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Practice Guide (findings for Multiple-exemplar training, auditory scripts, and script-fading procedures - Gomes et al. (2020))
- 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: 25%
Male: 75% -
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 took place in a single private school. No other details were provided regarding the type or location of the school, or whether the four children were in a single classroom within the school. The intervention was delivered in a variety of classrooms, offices, and hallways.
Study sample
Three boys and one girl, all 4 or 5 years old and diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, participated in the study. The study does not report any other details about the students.
Intervention Group
During each intervention session, students were taken to different rooms around the school and presented 16 stimuli. In each location, one of the 16 items was placed somewhere like a shelf, table, or the floor. Only one item was shown at a time, and the location changed from trial to trial. Every fifth session took place in the hallway instead of a room to help the student learn to respond in new environments. The stimuli fell into four categories: (1) toys that the student had not yet encountered at school; (2) objects arranged in an unusual manner (such as turned upside down or hanging from the ceiling); (3) large pictures of things like popular cartoon characters; and (4) sounds within the environment played through wireless speakers (such as a fire truck siren or cow mooing). There were 12 stimuli in each category. For each student, three of the four categories were part of the intervention probes, while the fourth served as across-category generalization. Each trial lasted approximately 1-2 minutes, with 12 trials per session. In each trial, the experimenter used scripts and manual guidance to encourage the student to make a bid for joint attention to the stimuli. The scripts and manual guidance faded over time. If the student did not make a bid within 5 seconds, the assistant would point at the stimulus, then physically orient the child to the experimenter, then orient the child to the target stimulus. At the beginning of each session, the student was given a preferred activity—like a toy or a book—to keep them engaged, similar to what they normally received in class. The assistant then played pre-recorded scripts using the experimenter's voice on a button-activated recorder to draw the student's attention while orienting them to the experimenter. If a bid was still not made, then behavioral rehearsals (akin to role-playing) were conducted for the trial until the participant successfully initiated a bid for joint attention. The research team then removed the child from the area of the stimulus and then asked them to reapproach within two to three minutes. The student was then given the chance to have a joint bid of attention independently. Social reactions (like smiling or commenting) were also delivered after participants initiated a bid for joint attention. Alexa and Marcus also required administration of a small snack after receiving the social reactions for additional reinforcement. When participants successfully initiated bids for joint attention on at least 83% of teaching trials for two consecutive sessions, then the experimenter started fading the scripts. After the scripts were faded, for two participants, a systematic thinning of the schedule of tangible reinforcers began. To encourage generalization, sessions took place in different locations, including offices and classrooms, and every fifth session occurred in hallways. Overall, students had between 9 and 32 intervention sessions.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case designs. Similar to the intervention sessions, during baseline sessions, students were taken to different rooms around the school and presented 16 stimuli. In each location, one of the 16 items was placed somewhere like a shelf, table, or the floor. Only one item was shown at a time, and the location changed from trial to trial. Every fifth session took place in the hallway instead of a room. The student was given a preferred activity—like a toy or a book—to keep them engaged, similar to what they normally received in class. During baseline sessions, no scripts or manual guidance were used to prompt initiations of bids for joint attention. If a bid was made, the experimenter made a comment, but no additional reinforcement was provided. Each trial lasted approximately 1-2 minutes. Students had between 6 to 14 baseline sessions.
Support for implementation
An experimenter and an assistant (one of three) conducted each session. The experimenter and two of the assistants were enrolled in a Master of Arts, Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) program. The third assistant had a bachelor's degree in special education.
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).