Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.55 1301-1313 October 2012. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/10-0345)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrowCustom Print
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ingersoll, B.
Right arrow Articles by Jelinek, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ingersoll, B.
Right arrow Articles by Jelinek, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Article

A Comparison of Developmental Social–Pragmatic and Naturalistic Behavioral Interventions on Language Use and Social Engagement in Children With Autism

Brooke Ingersolla
Katherine Meyera
Nicole Bontera
Sara Jelineka
a Michigan State University

Correspondence to Brooke Ingersoll: ingers19{at}msu.edu

Purpose: Developmental social–pragmatic and naturalistic behavioral interventions share a number of features, but they differ in their use of facilitative strategies and direct elicitation of child language. In this study, the authors investigated whether these approaches produce different language and social outcomes in young children with autism.

Method: The authors used an ABACAD design to compare the effects of a developmental social–pragmatic, naturalistic behavioral, and combined intervention on language type and function and social engagement in 5 children with autism.

Results: Milieu teaching and the combined intervention produced higher rates of language targets than did responsive interaction. An analysis of the type and function of language targets suggested that differences between conditions were driven primarily by prompted—and, to a lesser extent, spontaneous—requests. Social engagement ratings were higher during each intervention than at baseline, but differences between treatment conditions were not consistent across children.

Conclusions: For children with autism, naturalistic interventions that use direct elicitation of child language lead to greater short-term gains in the use of expressive language targets—in particular, prompted requests—than interventions that use facilitative strategies only. All 3 naturalistic language interventions can promote social engagement. For some children, the combined use of direct elicitation and responsiveness-based strategies may enhance treatment response.

KEY WORDS: autism, language intervention, behavioral, developmental


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?