1
Citation/Rating
Participants
Ingersoll, B., &
Lalonde, K. (2010). The
impact of object and
gesture imitation
training on language use
in children with autism
spectrum disorder.
Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing
Research, 53, 10401051.
-Four children (3 boys,
1 girl) with ASD
-Child A: male, 40
months, Caucasian,
cognitive age of 30
months, language age of
20 months
-Child B: female, 35
months, Hispanic,
cognitive age of 22
months, language age of
18 months
-Child C: male, 37
months, Caucasian,
cognitive age of 27
months, language age of
18 months
-Child D: male, 41
months, Caucasian,
cognitive age of 24
months, language age of
21 months
Design/Experimental
Conditions
Modified multiplebaseline design
IV
DV
Reciprocal Imitation
Training
-1 hour per day, 3 days
per week for 10 weeks
in a treatment room with
cameras. Five pairs of
identical play materials
(one for the child and
one for the therapist)
were used in each
treatment session, toys
chosen based on child’s
interests.
-Object Imitation
Model action with
duplicate of the toy. If
the child is spinning the
wheels of a car, model
pushing a car on the
floor while saying
“Vroom, vroom.”
-Gesture Imitation
Model a gesture related
to the child’s play. If
the child is spinning the
wheels on a car, also
spin the wheels on your
car while saying, “Spin,
spin.”
-Therapist imitated the
child’s verbal and
nonverbal behavior,
described the child’s
actions using simplified
language, and expanded
Increase of appropriate
language use.
-Appropriate language:
Any language the child
used for the purpose of
communicating with the
therapist (in response to
communication or
spontaneously initiated).
Language must be in
context and meaningful.
2
Citation/Rating
Participants
Design/Experimental
Conditions
IV
DV
the child’s utterances.
Ex. If the child was
rolling a car on the
ground, roll a car on the
ground also and say,
“Roll car. Car is
rolling.”
If the child says, “Roll
car,” respond with “Roll
the car” or “Roll car
fast.”
*If the child does not
imitate after 3 times,
prompt the child, say
“Say roll car.” If the
child does imitate,
praise them.
Ingersoll, B., &
Schreibman, L. (2006).
Teaching reciprocal
imitation skills to young
children with autism
using a naturalistic
behavioral approach:
Effects on language,
pretend play, and joint
attention. Journal of
Autism and
Developmental
Disorders, 36(4), 487505.
Five children with
Autism
-Child A: male, 41
months, mental age of
29 months, language
age of 25 months
-Child B: female, 45
months, mental age of
23 months, language
age of 22 months
-Child C: female, 29
months, mental age of
15 months, language
age of less than 8
months
-Child D: male, 34
months, mental age of
Single- subject,
multiple-baseline design
Naturalistic Techniques
to encourage Object
Imitation
-3 days a week, 8 20minute sessions per
week, for 10 weeks
Phase I
-no actions modeled
Phase II
-only familiar actions
were modeled with the
same toy
Phase III
-familiar and novel
actions were modeled
with the same toy
Phase IV
Increase in object
imitation, combined
imitation, imitative
language, spontaneous
language, total
language, pretend play,
spontaneous pretend
play, appropriate play,
and coordinated joint
attention.
Object imitation: Child
imitates an action with
an object within 10
seconds of the model.
Imitation must not be
exact, but should look
3
Citation/Rating
Participants
16 months, language
age of less than 8
months
-Child E: male, 34
months, mental age of
16 months, language
age of 17 months
Design/Experimental
Conditions
IV
DV
-familiar and novel
actions were modeled
with a different toy
Phase V
-familiar and novel
actions were modeled
with the same and
different toys
Naturalistic Techniques:
-contingent imitation:
imitating all of the
child’s actions with
toys, gestures, and
vocalizations, used to
gain child’s attention
-linguistic mapping:
provide a running
commentary of the
actions you and the
child are simultaneously
performing, used to
provide appropriate
language models
-modeling: model an
action and
corresponding verbal
marker with the
duplicate of the toy the
child is manipulating, as
time progresses, model
with toys the child is not
engaged in to encourage
more flexible
responding
-Pivotal Response
distinctly like the
model. Child can use a
different, but similar
object. This must
happen before adult
models another action.
Combined imitation:
Child combines object
imitation with verbal
imitation of all or part
of adult’s verbal marker
Imitative language:
Child imitates all or part
of adult’s speech within
10 seconds of the
adult’s model. Includes
imitation of verbal
markers and linguistic
mapping.
Spontaneous language:
Child uses speech that
was not preceded by a
verbal model, question,
or gestural prompt.
Must be in context and
meaningful.
Total language: Child
uses speech that was
spontaneous or preceded
by a verbal model,
question, and gestural
4
Citation/Rating
Participants
Design/Experimental
Conditions
IV
DV
Training (PRT):
enhances motivation by
using natural
reinforcement, child
choice of tasks, turntaking, reinforcement of
attempter responses, and
maintenance tasks
*Praise and
reinforcement is used
when the child imitates
actions or vocalizations
(praise verbally and
allow continuous access
to the toy of interest)
If the child does not
imitate after the third
time, physically prompt
the child to complete the
action (hand over hand)
and then provide praise
prompt. Must be in
context and meaningful.
Total pretend play:
Child performs a
distinct action with
miniature objects,
directs a pretend action
towards self, adult or
inanimate object, uses
object as if it were
another object,
attributes properties to
an object which it does
not have or refers to an
absent object as if it
were present.
Spontaneous pretend
play: Child performs a
pretend play scheme
that is not imitative
(occurring within 30
seconds of a model).
An imitated pretend
scheme that continues
more than 30 seconds
after model or occurs
later in the sessions is
spontaneous.
Appropriate Play:
Child engages in paly
that is appropriate to
toys and context of
5
Citation/Rating
Participants
Design/Experimental
Conditions
IV
DV
interaction. Includes
functional and pretend
play
Coordinated joint
attention: Child
spontaneously
coordinates gaze
between an object and
adult for the purpose of
sharing. Child must
make eye contact with
adult
Rogers, S. J., Hayden,
D., Hepburn, S.,
Charlifue-Smith, R.,
Hall, T., & Hayes, A.
(2006). Teaching young
nonverbal children with
autism useful speech: A
pilot study of the denver
model and prompt
interventions. Journal of
Autism and
Developmental
Disorders, 36, 10071024.
Ten children with
Autism, nonverbal
Denver Model
-Child A: male, 29
months, mental age of
18 months
-Child B: male, 38
months, mental age of
13 months
-Child C: male, 57
months, mental age of
29 months
-Child D: male, 39
months, mental age of
18 months
-Child E: male, 40
months, mental age of
19 months
PROMPT Model
-Child F: male, 24
months, mental age of
Single-subject design
(A-B-A)
-12, 1 hour weekly
sessions of therapy and
daily 1 hour home
intervention delivered
by parents
Denver Model (merges
behavioral,
developmental, and
relationship-oriented
intervention)
-Parent present and
active in each session
-Communication
curriculum
-Use social games to
encourage interaction
-Teach imitation of
objects, actions, facial
expressions, gestures,
and speech sounds
-Use repetitive language
Functional Speech
The study was looking
for an increase in
spontaneous word usage
by the participants.
6
Citation/Rating
Participants
23 months
-Child G: male, 28
months, mental age of
13 months
-Child H: male, 20
months, mental age of
13 months
-Child I: male, 65
months, mental age of
27 months
-Child J: male, 44
months, mental age of
17 months
Design/Experimental
Conditions
IV
to name
-Teach object
association by
repetitively naming
objects
-Use modeling and
shaping to increase
verbal approximations
of target words during
play
PROMPT-Prompts for
Restructuring Oral
Muscular Phonetic
Targets (neurodevelopmental approach
for speech production
disorders)
-Parents observed
treatment sessions via
video
-Child attends to toybased activity and
produces an intentional
sound to request
-Support child’s
utterance through
integrated auditory and
tactile cues
-Vocal modeling and
actual manual
manipulation of the
child’s jaw, lips, and
other speech
mechanisms
-Physical cues are
DV
7
Citation/Rating
Schertz, H. H., &
Odom, S. L. (2007).
Promoting joint
attention in toddlers
with autism: A parentmediated developmental
model. Journal of
Autism and
Developmental
Disorders, 37, 15621575.
Participants
Design/Experimental
Conditions
Three children with
Single-subject, multiple
Autism and their parents baseline design
-Child A: male, 24
months, mother age 27
-Child B: male, 33
months, mother age 32
-Child C: male, 22
months, mother age 23
IV
gradually faded into
visual cues
-Chosen activities
should be motivating,
within child’s mental
age, and support
functional interaction
and independent speech
across settings.
Joint Attention
Intervention Model
-conducted in families
homes
-parents played face-toface games using toys
present in their homes
-Suggested activities
were provided for each
family, parents were
able to use own ideas
Focusing on faces:
-interactive face
oriented vocal games
with strong rhythms
-pairing looks to the
face with expressions of
affection
-imitate facial gestures
Turn-Taking:
-imitation of childinitiated gestures
-respond to child actions
as if they were intended
as interactions
-embed adult actions
DV
Focusing on faces, turntaking, responding to
joint attention, and
initiating joint attention.
Focusing on faces:
Child looks at any part
of the mother’s face
during an interaction.
Turn-Taking: Child
performs an action,
adult performs an
action, and child
performs another action.
This is one interaction.
Responding to joint
attention: Child
responds to an adults
attempt to draw his/her
attention to an object by
alternating looks
between the adults face
and the object for the
purpose of sharing
8
Citation/Rating
Heimann, M., Laberg,
K. E., & Nordoen, B.
(2006). Imitative
interaction increases
social interest and
elicited imitation in
non-verbal children with
autism. Infant and Child
Development, 15, 297309.
Participants
Twenty children with
Autism Spectrum
Disorder (non-verbal)
-19 boys and 1 girl
-Mean chronological
age of 6 years and 5
months
-Mean mental age of 2
years and 1 month
Design/Experimental
Conditions
Multiple-baseline
design
IV
into the child’s isolated
repetitive play
-follow child’s lead
-play teasing games
Responding to joint
attention:
-introduce a toy after
establishing eye contact
-hold toy close to face
when offering it to the
child
-use excitement to
encourage child to look
between toy and adult’s
face
Initiating joint
attention:
-express excitement
about the child’s play
with a toy
Adaptation of Nadel’s
“still-face” paradigm
-testing room with two
sets of ten identical toys
-four phases, each
lasting 4 minutes
Still-face 1:
-child enters unfamiliar
room alone, where an
unfamiliar adult is
sitting like a statue
Intervention Phase:
-adult imitates
everything the child
does (all movements
DV
interest.
Initiating joint
attention: Child
alternate’s look between
the adult’s face and an
object for the apparent
purpose of drawing the
adult’s attention to the
object.
Change in “Social
interest” (touch, look at
person, request)
Experimenters were
looking for the
frequency of touching
the adult, looking at the
adult, and making
requests to increase,
which they refer to as
“social interest”
9
Citation/Rating
Participants
Design/Experimental
Conditions
IV
DV
and sounds)
Still-face 2:
-adult returns to seat and
acts statue like again
Free Play:
-adult plays with child
without using imitation
as a means of contact
-adult allowed to take
initiative, other than
imitative
Break for 30-60
minutes, then the 4phase procedure is
repeated
Citation
Ingersoll, B., &
Lalonde, K. (2010).
The impact of
object and gesture
imitation training
on language use in
children with
autism spectrum
disorder. Journal of
Speech, Language,
and Hearing
Research, 53, 10401051.
Results
Three of the four
children showed
greater
improvements in
their use of
appropriate
language and kept
this improvement at
the 2 month followup.
All children
showed an increase
in vocabulary at
post-treatment and
Instruments
-Motor Imitation
Scale (MIS)
-Noldus Observer
software
-Pearsons productmoment
correlations
-Paired toys
-Bayley
-Preschool
language scales
-Unstructured
Imitation
Assessment (UIA)
Fidelity
-Inter-related
reliability obtained
using Pearson’s
product-moment
correlations
-Tests performed to
test differences
between correlated
scores-no
significant
difference found
-Primary rater
served as a therapist
Strengths/Weaknesses
Strengths:
-Almost all children
showed improvement
in appropriate
language, vocabulary,
and imitation skills that
were maintained after
intervention.
Weaknesses:
-Study did not include
a true baseline phase
therefore that cannot
determine the degree to
which object imitation
Usability
Although this
intervention was
done in a treatment
center with
therapists, I think
that with proper
coaching parents
could do this
intervention in their
home. From this
study, the
intervention seems
successful in
promoting
10
Citation
Ingersoll, B., &
Schreibman, L.
(2006). Teaching
reciprocal imitation
skills to young
children with
autism using a
naturalistic
behavioral
approach: Effects
on language,
pretend play, and
joint attention.
Journal of Autism
and Developmental
Disorders, 36(4),
487-505.
Results
follow-up.
All children
improved in object
and gesture
imitation skills.
Higher rate of
verbal imitations
during the gesture
sessions versus the
objet sessions, in 3
out of 4 children.
No significant
difference between
the two in the other
child.
-All participants
exhibited
significant increase
in their rate of
imitation. In posttreatment phase, 4/5
children maintained
increase of
imitation and were
able to generalize
it.
-4/5 children
increased in
combined
imitations and 3
maintained that.
-All children
showed increase in
imitative language,
4/5 maintained it
-2/5 children
Instruments
-MacArthur-Bates
Communication
Development
Inventory (MCDI)
Fidelity
-Motor Imitation
Scale
-Joint Attention
Assessment
-Structure
Laboratory
Observation (SLO)
-Two groups of 32
college students in
psychology were
used to score
videos. They were
blind to the study
and only answered
specific questions
about the children’s
behaviors in the
videos
-video analysis
-resampling
procedure used to
verify observed
differences in
treatment phases
Strengths/Weaknesses
Usability
alone improved
language.
language skills.
-All children in study
were verbal
-Primary coder
provided some of the
intervention
-Small number of
participants
Strengths:
-Many positive results
-usability
Weaknesses:
-variability in response
of treatment
-cannot be sure about
what exactly caused
the changes in the
children
-many interventions
used, hard to pinpoint
what had an effect on
what
Although there
were so many
interventions used
and it is hard to be
sure which ones
worked, I think
they all have a valid
place in EI. I also
think they are
strategies that can
be used by parents
and professionals.
11
Citation
Rogers, S. J.,
Hayden, D.,
Hepburn, S.,
Charlifue-Smith,
R., Hall, T., &
Hayes, A. (2006).
Teaching young
nonverbal children
with autism useful
speech: A pilot
study of the denver
model and prompt
interventions.
Journal of Autism
and Developmental
Disorders, 36,
Results
increased in use of
spontaneous
language, and both
maintained it
-4/5 children
increased in pretend
play and 3 of them
maintained it
-2/5 children
showed increase in
spontaneous
pretend play and
both children
maintained it
-All children
showed increase in
their coordinated
joint attention and 3
children maintained
it
-8/10 children
demonstrated
functional,
spontaneous use of
five or more novel
words
-9/10 were reported
using more words
-2 children did not
develop functional
speech
-2 children had a
large increase in
spontaneous word
use (over 50
different words)
Instruments
-ADOS
-The Social
Communicative
Questionnaire
(SCQ)
-Mullen Scales of
Early Learning
-Vineland Adaptive
Behavior Scales
-MacArthur
Communicative
Development
Inventory
Fidelity
-fidelity rating
system used
-fidelity of each
therapist was 85%
or higher for three
consecutive pilot
sessions
Strengths/Weaknesses
Usability
Strengths:
-positive outcomes
-fidelity
-success in coaching
Weaknesses:
-Small study with a
short time span
-children were
generally
homogeneous
-long training period
-parent implementation
monitored only by
parent report
Although these
interventions
produced some
positive results,
from reading this
article alone I could
not reproduce either
intervention. The
steps for the
intervention were
not clearly laid out,
making it difficult
for anyone to be
able to use either of
them. Further
research would be
12
Citation
1007-1024.
Results
Instruments
Fidelity
Strengths/Weaknesses
Schertz, H. H., &
Odom, S. L. (2007).
Promoting joint
attention in toddlers
with autism: A
parent-mediated
developmental
model. Journal of
Autism and
Developmental
Disorders, 37,
1562-1575.
All children
improved
performance
-2 children showed
repeated
engagement in joint
attention
-generalization
occurred in all
children
-The Joint
Attention Mediated
Learning Manual
(JAML)
-QSR NVivo
software
-inter-observer
agreement
-triangulation of
data
-daily parent notes
reviewed to
establish parentchild mediation
fidelity
Strengths:
-Parent satisfaction
-Positive results
Weaknesses:
-findings limited
because of small
number of participants
Heimann, M.,
Laberg, K. E., &
Nordoen, B. (2006).
Imitative
interaction
increases social
interest and elicited
imitation in nonverbal children with
autism. Infant and
Child Development,
15, 297-309.
-Significant
increase in social
interest (touching,
looking at person
and requesting)
-Generalization
took place with half
of the children
-Psycho-Educative
Profile-Revised
(PEP-R)
-Used Observer
software to analyze
video
-Observations
coded by two
observers
-Reliability in all
three categories
Strengths:
-Positive Results
-supported evidence
-easy to follow
Weaknesses:
-very short intervention
-done in experimental
room/setting
Usability
needed to know
how to implement
each intervention.
This intervention is
very usable for
families,
considering it was
used by parents,
with success, in the
study. However,
the study itself does
not go into a ton of
detail about the
process of the
actual intervention.
Although this study
yielded positive
results and was
easy to follow, it is
not a naturalistic or
family-centered
intervention. It is
conducted in a
strange room, with
a stranger. It may
be able to be altered
to use with parents
and families
however.