Today, there are several interventions that can be implemented with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Most of these interventions have limited to no empirical evidence demonstrating their effectiveness, yet they are widely implemented in home, school, university, and community settings. In 1996, Green wrote a chapter in which she outlined three levels of science: evidence science, pseudoscience, and antiscience; professionals were encouraged to implement and recommend only those procedures that would be considered evidence science. Today, an intervention that is commonly implemented with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder is Social Thinking®. This intervention has been utilized by behaviorists and non-behaviorists. This commentary will outline Social Thinking® and provide evidence that the procedure, at the current time, qualifies as a pseudoscience and, therefore, should not be implemented with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, especially given the availability of alternatives which clearly meet the standard of evidence science.

No abstract

Individuals with autism have been noted to have restricted interests and repetitive behavior such as nonfunctional manipulation of objects. In this study, we used an observational conditioning procedure to switch the preference of items for four individuals diagnosed with autism who are considered lower functioning. The procedure consisted of the participant observing an adult playing with toys that were initially non‐preferred by the participant in a functional and engaging manner. For two participants, results were similar to the findings by Leaf; one participant required additional conditioning procedures, and we were unable to switch the preference for the other participant. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This study compared the teaching interaction procedure to social stories implemented in a group setting to teach social skills to three children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The researchers taught each participant one social skill with the teaching interaction procedure, one social skill with the social story procedure, and one social skill was assigned to a no intervention condition. The teaching interaction procedure consisted of didactic questions, teacher demonstration, and role-play; the social story procedure consisted of reading a book and answering comprehension questions. The researchers measured participants' performances during probes, responses to comprehension questions, and responding during role-plays. The results indicated that the teaching interaction procedure was more efficacious than the social story procedure across all three participants.

Discrete trial teaching (DTT) is a systematic form of intervention commonly implemented with children and adolescents diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Experimenters and clinicians have implemented DTT in both one-to-one instructional formats and group instructional formats to teach a wide variety of skills to children and adolescents diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The purpose of this study was to compare DTT implemented in a one-to-one instructional format with DTT implemented in a group instructional format in order to determine which format was more effective, efficient, resulted in higher observational learning, and resulted in better maintenance when teaching a variety of expressive skills. The experimenters utilized a parallel treatment design, and the results indicated that both instructional formats were equally effective, there were mixed results in terms of maintenance and efficiency, and group instruction resulted in observational learning.