Teaching Mands for Information Using “Why” to Children With Autism

Abstract

Mands for information (MFIs) play an important role in language development and are important for successfully acquiring new information from one's environment. Yet many individuals with autism do not acquire mands for information without direct teaching. Research has demonstrated effective procedures for teaching all "wh" forms, except for "why." This study investigated procedures to teach the MFI "why" under control of the establishing operation and examined the extent to which teaching resulted in generalization. The intervention was effective in establishing the MFI "why" for 3 children with autism, and generalization to novel scenarios occurred for all participants.Keywords Abolishing operations . Establishing operations . Mand for information . Why questions Mands for information (MFIs) are classified as behavior in the form of question asking that is under the control of an establishing operation (EO), the consequence being information related to the EO (Sundberg, Loeb, Hale, & Eigenheer, 2002). This behavior often occurs in the form of "wh" questions, though any topography can serve as an MFI (e.g., "tell me"; Ingvarsson & Hollobaugh, 2010). MFIs play an important role in language development (Chouinard, 2007), and many researchers (e.g., Sundberg et al., 2002) have stressed the importance of investigating effective procedures to teach this skill because MFI repertoires allow individuals to acquire unknown information about the environment. For example, asking "What's that?" may help an individual acquire new tacts (Lechago, Carr, Grow, Love, & Almason, 2010), and asking "How?" may allow an individual to navigate novel problems he or she encounters

A systematic review of mands for information

“…The authors of 17 experiments reported assessments (e.g., Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Sparrow et al., 2005; VB‐MAPP, Sundberg, 2008; Preschool Language Scale, Zimmerman et al., 2002) to evaluate the participants' verbal behavior (Carnett et al., 2020; Carnett & Ingvarsson, 2016; Howlett et al., 2011; Kahlow et al., 2019; Landa et al., 2017, 2020; Lechago et al., 2010, 2013; Marion et al., 2011, Marion, Martin, Yu, Buhler, & Kerr, 2012; Pyles et al., 2021; Roy‐Wsiaki et al., 2010; Shillingsburg et al., 2018, 2019; Somers et al., 2014; Speckman et al., 2021; Valentino et al., 2019), and the authors of 12 experiments reported those assessment results (all but Howlett et al., 2011; Lechago et al., 2013; Shillingsburg et al., 2018; Somers et al., 2014). The authors of all 35 experiments reported anecdotal information for each participant's existing verbal repertoire (e.g., can tact more than 100 items; can mand for information using wh‐ questions, but does not mand for information using how?…”

“…The authors of six experiments reported using indirect assessments (Marion, Martin, Yu, Buhler, & Kerr, 2012; Roy‐Wsiaki et al., 2010; Shillingsburg & Valentino, 2011; Patil et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2003), with one of those experiments (Williams et al., 2003) identifying objects that were aversive to the participants rather than reinforcing. Furthermore, in four experiments (Jessel & Ingvarsson, 2021; Landa et al., 2020; Valentino et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2000) the authors did not utilize preference assessments to identify reinforcing tangibles, edibles, or activities, and in two experiments (Carnett & Ingvarsson, 2016; Shillingsburg et al., 2018) the authors only provided information for mands for information.…”

“…The authors of 17 experiments reported assessments (e.g., Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Sparrow et al, 2005;VB-MAPP, Sundberg, 2008;Preschool Language Scale, Zimmerman et al, 2002) to evaluate the participants' verbal behavior (Carnett et al, 2020;Carnett & Ingvarsson, 2016;Howlett et al, 2011;Kahlow et al, 2019;Landa et al, 2017Landa et al, , 2020Lechago et al, 2010Lechago et al, , 2013Marion et al, 2011Pyles et al, 2021;Roy-Wsiaki et al, 2010;Shillingsburg et al, 2018Shillingsburg et al, , 2019Somers et al, 2014;Speckman et al, 2021;Valentino et al, 2019), and the authors of 12 experiments reported those assessment results (all but Howlett…”

“…Researchers should also continue to explore different evocative scenarios to capture the full range of MOs. For example, only three recent studies (Patil et al., 2021; Pyles et al., 2021; Valentino et al., 2019) evaluated scenarios to teach mands for information with the why autoclitic frame. The authors developed different scenarios that had in common two general evocative events: an unusual incident that happened and the experimenter did not provide any explanation for it, and denied access to preferred items.…”

“…Third, our review of the literature since 2015 suggests an increase in the number of articles published on mands for information (i.e., 44% of articles included in this review; further discussed in the Results section). Three of these new studies (Patil et al., 2021; Pyles et al., 2021; Valentino et al., 2019) focused on teaching the autoclitic frame why , which had not been explored in previous studies. Fourth, when teaching mands for information, it is important to condition information as a reinforcer.…”