1. Explain the skill you will be working on (“Handling when someone says “no”.) 2. Give examples of appropriate ways to handle the skill and inappropriate ways you could handle the skill. a. Appropriate ways (Say “ok”, Ask if you can do...instead). b. Inappropriate ways (Yell, hit someone, throw things, etc.). 3. Provide a rationale for using the skill. a. Appropriate: If we use the skill, we will earn points and the person may allow us to play a different game instead. b. Inappropriate: If we hit, yell, etc., we will not earn points and the person may not want to play or let us play the game next time. 4. Give the student a couple scenarios that have happened prior in the natural environment and what could happen if they used the skill appropriately or inappropriately. a. T: When you were told to hand over your keys, what did you do? S: “I yelled no and did not hand ____ my keys.” T: What happened then? S: “I wasn’t allowed to keep my keys in the room with me anymore.” T: If you would have handed them over, what do you think would have been different? S: “I probably could have kept my keys in the room with me or on me.” 5. Provide the student with feedback as they discuss and role-play the different scenarios.

Punishment is any stimulus change following a response that decreases the probability of that response occurring in similar situations in the future. Punishment-based techniques (i.e., techniques developed based upon the functional definition of punishment) are effective at decreasing undesired behavior. Despite the documented effectiveness, there have been several concerns about the use of punishment techniques (e.g., potential negative side effects such as aggression and problems of generalization). As a result, the use of punishment techniques (e.g., saying "no") have been avoided within clinical settings for children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The purpose of this descriptive analysis was to evaluate how punishment techniques were used within a clinical setting for 15 students diagnosed with ASD. The results showed that although punishment techniques (e.g., saying "no" or removal of a token) occurred frequently, the students rarely demonstrated negative reactions commonly ascribed to the use of punishment.

J. B. Leaf et al. (Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9, 152-157, 2016) wrote a commentary on social thinking (ST), an intervention commonly implemented for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The authors described what constitutes scientific, pseudoscientific, and antiscientific evidence and contended that ST aligns with the definition of pseudoscience and, to date, is not empirically supported or evidence based. Crooke and Winner (Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9, 403-408, 2016) responded, arguing that ST meets their definition of an evidence-based practice and identifying purported misconceptions and inaccuracies described by J. B. Leaf et al. In the current article, the authors clarify the original arguments, critically evaluate Crooke and Winner's definition of what constitutes evidence-based practice, further evaluate the research on ST, discuss issues regarding how ST is conceptualized, and express concerns about the endorsement and use of an eclectic approach to treating ASD. As this response was written by behavior analysts, it specifically addresses the conceptual consistency of this approach from a behavior-analytic worldview.

Level systems have been described as a framework which can be used to shape behavior through the systematic application of behavioral principles. Within level systems, an individual moves up and down through various levels contingent upon specific behaviors. Although level systems are commonly used within schools and other settings, they have a limited empirical literature base, and there is debate over the efficacy and overall acceptance of level systems. More especially, there is scant empirical literature on the use level systems to improve socially significant behaviors (e.g., synchronous engagement) with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a level system with a structured, yet flexible approach to movement on improving synchronous engagement with two dyads of children diagnosed with ASD. The results of an ABAB reversal design indicated that the level system was effective at improving synchronous engagement for both dyads. The results are discussed in relation to potential future research difficulties and clinical implications.

The teaching of receptive labels (i.e., auditory-visual conditional discriminations) is common among early intervention programs for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Discrete trial teaching (DTT) is a common approach used to teach these receptive labels. Some have argued that the stimuli within the array, target and non-target, must be counterbalanced to prevent the development of undesired stimulus control. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of three different approaches to stimulus rotation to teach receptive labels to five young children diagnosed with ASD. These approaches included counterbalanced, fixed, and clinician's choice. The results of an adapted alternating treatment design replicated across three stimulus sets and five participants indicated that all three methods of rotation were effective. Maintenance and generalization for targets taught in all three conditions was also assessed. The implications of the results with respect to current teaching practices in early intervention programs are discussed.

Today, the use of formal preference assessments, including paired-stimulus preference assessments, is widely utilized to help determine which items to use as reinforcers during intervention. A second way to determine potential reinforcers is to analyze multiple dimensions of a stimulus in the moment, a procedure known as in-the-moment reinforcer analysis. Although paired-stimulus preference assessments are widely used, there is no experimental evidence that extensive advance preference assessments actually produce higher rates of learning than in-the-moment reinforcer analysis. The present study compared rates of learning on a simple expressive labeling task when correct responses were reinforced with items selected based on extensive formal paired-preference assessments versus items selected by a teacher using in-the-moment analysis of reinforcer effects. The results indicated no clear difference in skill acquisition, but there were clear differences in terms of efficiency and maintenance.

Autism spectrum disorder is marked by qualitative impairments with social skills, communication, and restricted and/or repetitive behavior. Given the social skills deficits commonly associated with autism spectrum disorder, several interventions have been developed and explored empirically. One such intervention, which has a considerable history within the practice domain of applied behavior analysis, but has just recently gained more attention with respect to autism intervention, is the teaching interaction procedure. The teaching interaction procedure is a multi-step, systematic approach that has been used to teach a variety of skills for individual diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder; however, this chapter focuses on the use of the teaching interaction procedure to improve social skills. This chapter describes the general sequence of the steps of the teaching interaction procedure and how the teaching interaction procedure differs from other similar interventions. An extensive review of the literature as it applies to social skills development is also provided as well as a discussion of implications for clinicians and potential future areas of research.

The present study evaluated the effects of instructive feedback embedded within a group discrete trial teaching to teach tact relations to nine children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder using a nonconcurrent multiple-baseline design. Dependent variables included correct responses for: primary targets (directly taught), secondary targets (taught via instructive feedback), primary observational targets (directly taught to other members of the group), and secondary observational targets (taught via instructive feedback provided to other members of the group). Results showed that all nine participants reached the mastery criterion for the primary targets, as well as acquired the secondary and observational targets without direct teaching. Clinical implications and areas for future research are provided.

In this study we evaluated a social skills group which employed a progressive applied behavior analysis model for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. A randomized control trial was utilized; eight participants were randomly assigned to a treatment group and seven participants were randomly assigned to a waitlist control group. The social skills group consisted of 32, 2 h sessions. Teachers implemented a variety of behaviorally based procedures. A blind evaluator measured participants’ behavior immediately prior to intervention, immediately following intervention, and during 16 and 32-week maintenance probes. Results of the study demonstrated that participants made significant improvements with their social behavior (p < .001) following intervention, and the results were maintained up to 32 weeks after intervention had concluded.

Growth in research on the application of applied behavior analysis in the social skills area with persons with autism spectrum disorder, is likely to lead to similar growth in the clinical area. This chapter is concerned with matters for future inclusion and consideration in such clinical intervention. Covered is the need for authenticity and meaningfulness in building social competencies for persons with autism spectrum disorder. Also included is the importance of building social interest and desire in addition to social skills. Further addressed are the challenges faced in clinical work when attempting to develop genuine friendships. In addition to spending a little time on curricular issues, the chapter examines some matters pertaining to social skills groups. Additionally covered, is what may be the most important consideration of all in social skill clinical intervention, generalization, (i.e., the transfer of learning from clinical arrangements to independent usage in natural everyday social situations). Finally, the chapter examines the risks that are likely to be encountered when unsupported social skill interventions are employed with persons with autism spectrum disorder.

In 2014, the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB®) initiated a program for credentialing behavior technicians. The new credential, Registered Behavior Technician™ (RBT®), is for providers of behavioral intervention to a wide range of individuals with mental health needs and developmental delays, including individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The RBT® would represent the entry-level position within the range of the BACB® credentials. Despite the increasing acceptance of this newest level of credential from the behavioral community, the authors of this paper have substantial concerns with the RBT® credential as it relates to the delivery of intervention to individuals diagnosed with ASD. The purpose of this paper is to detail these concerns and propose remedies that would ensure that individuals diagnosed with ASD receive effective behavioral intervention.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of two error correction (EC) procedures: modeling alone and the use of an error statement plus modeling. Utilizing an alternating treatments design nested into a multiple baseline design across participants, we sought to evaluate and compare the effects of these two EC procedures used to teach two sets of labels. Three children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder participated in this study. Results demonstrated that all participants acquired targeted labels in both EC conditions, and maintained high-levels of correct responding at follow-up. Only one participant acquired skills more quickly in the modeling alone condition. Future directions for additional research pertaining to effective and efficient EC procedures are discussed.

This study evaluated the use of the cool versus not cool procedure to teach sixteen children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder how to initiate or respond to bids for joint attention and how to increase peer to peer communication with their peers. The cool versus not cool procedure consisted of the teacher modeling the targeted social behaviors both the cool (i.e., appropriate) and not cool (i.e., inappropriate) way, having the participants discriminate if the model was cool or not cool, having the participants state reasons why the model was cool or not cool, and having the participants role-play the targeted social behavior. All instruction was provided in a group format. Using a non-concurrent multiple baseline design across skills and participants the results showed that the cool versus not cool procedure was successful, with the majority of participants acquiring the two social behaviors and maintaining these behaviors after intervention had concluded.

In this study we compared the cool versus not cool procedure to Social Stories (TM) for teaching various social behaviors to one individual diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The researchers randomly assigned three social skills to the cool versus not cool procedure and three social skills to the Social Stories (TM) procedure. Naturalistic probes were utilized to determine the participant's successful demonstration of the various social skills taught with each procedure. The researchers utilized an adapted alternating treatment design to compare the effectiveness of each of the two procedures. Results indicated that the participant acquired all of the skills taught with the cool versus not cool procedure and demonstrated minimal improvements for the skills taught with Social Stories (TM). Practical implications as well as future research are discussed.

The graduated reinforcement procedure (also known as differential reinforcement) is an often-used procedure in the field of Applied Behavior Analysis to teach new skills and increase pro-social behaviors. In this study, the researchers used a multi-element design to evaluated the graduated reinforcement procedure for six children with a diagnosis of autism by assessing a rate of responding task across three conditions: a graduated reinforcement condition, an all-or-none reinforcement condition, and a control (no reinforcement) condition. Results of the study were idiosyncratic to the participants. Due to the variability in responding to the graduated reinforcement procedure, this study calls into question the utility of this procedure when used with certain profiles of students to teach certain skills and to use future research to assess for variables in teaching which make the graduated reinforcement procedure effective.

This study evaluated the utility of the cool versus not cool procedure for teaching three structured indoor games to eight children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The study took place as part of a social skills group for individuals diagnosed with ASD, and this study was one component of that group. The cool versus not cool procedure consisted of the teacher demonstrating each game the cool (i.e., appropriate) and not cool (i.e., inappropriate) way and having the participants provide a rationale as to why the demonstration was either cool or not cool. This was followed by giving the participants the opportunity to role-play the game in front of the group. The teachers utilized unprompted performance probes with no programmed reinforcement to create opportunities for the participants to display the targeted behavior (s). A multiple baseline design across behaviors and replicated across participants was utilized. The results indicated that seven of the eight participants mastered each of the games taught.

Today many special education classrooms implement procedures based upon the principles of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) to establish educationally relevant skills and decrease aberrant behaviors. However, it is difficult for school staff and consultants to evaluate the implementation of various components of ABA and general classroom set up. In the present study we developed the Behavioral Classroom Needs Assessment as a tool to measure the quality of implementation of principles derived from ABA, teaching, and classroom set up in special education classrooms. Experiment 1 evaluated the reliability of two observers using the Behavioral Classroom Needs Assessment during 128 different observations across 68 different special education classrooms. An Intraclass Correlation Coefficient and Cronbach Alpha Analysis were utilized to determine reliability, and the results showed a high f of reliability across the 40 questions of the assessment. Experiment 2 compared the quality of intervention using the Behavioral Classroom Needs Assessment in five classrooms who received behavioral consultation and five classrooms that did not receive behavioral consultation. The results showed an improvement in the scores on the Behavioral Classroom Needs Assessment for those classrooms in which consultation occurred.

Background Children with autism spectrum disorder have impairments in social behaviours that require systematic intervention. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cool versus not cool procedure implemented in a small group (dyad).Method The cool versus not cool procedure consisted of the researcher demonstrating the targeted behaviour both correctly and incorrectly and having the participants discriminate the demonstration. If the participants were unable to reach mastery, additional components were added. The researchers utilised a multiple-probe design to evaluate the cool versus not cool procedure.Results Results indicated that participants were able to reach mastery criterion on some of the social skills with the demonstration alone whereas some skills required either role-playing or feedback during probes.Conclusions The results showed that the cool versus not cool procedure was somewhat effective in increasing social behaviours; however, some skills required additional components for participants to reach mastery criterion.