Content uploaded by Debra Kamps
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Debra Kamps on Mar 11, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Debra Kamps
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Debra Kamps on Jul 14, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities
26(3) 131 –142
© 2011 Hammill Institute on Disabilities
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1088357610376945
http://focus.sagepub.com
Effects of Task Analysis and
Self-Monitoring for Children With
Autism in Multiple Social Settings
Daniel Parker
1
and Debra Kamps
2
Abstract
In this study, written task analyses with self-monitoring were used to teach functional skills and verbal interactions to two
high-functioning students with autism in social settings with peers. A social script language intervention was included in two
of the activities to increase the quantity of verbal interaction between the students and peers. Analysis of the results leads
to the conclusion that the intervention package increased independent task completion, peer-directed verbal interaction,
and activity engagement for the students with autism during social, game, and cooking activities. Improvements in task
completion persisted after the written task analyses were faded. The percentage of intervals with appropriate language use
remained consistent as the social scripts were faded during the game activities.
Keywords
autism, task completion, self-monitoring, social settings, elementary ages, peer groups
Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders have a signifi-
cantly restricted range of social communication and initiation
skills to engage in reciprocal interactions with peers
(Volkmar, Carter, Grossman, & Klin, 1997), with reported
aloof, active-but-odd, and passive behaviors (Beglinger
& Smith, 2005; Borden & Ollendick, 1994). In light of the
core deficits in social and verbal communication, research-
ers have exp lored interventions spe cifically to improve verbal
com munication in social activities with peers. Examples
of interventions include task analysis, visual/picture cuing
systems, and self-management strategies.
After a task analysis, students are taught to refer to a list
of steps to follow to complete a task and, in some cases, to
check (self-monitor) each step’s completion. Anderson, Taras,
and Cannon (1996) define task analysis, also called step
analysis, as the delineation of a complex task into smaller,
more manageable steps. Students are taught to chain the
steps together from beginning to end, backward, or in small
clusters, through the use of modeling, graduated guidance,
and varying degrees of prompting procedures to teach indi-
vidual steps. Modest resources are required to complete a
task analysis, and they can be completed across a large array
of settings and activities. The application of task analysis
and prompt fading to change behaviors has been success-
fully demonstrated in numerous studies (Garff & Storey,
1998; McAdam & Cuvo, 1994). Despite the potential util-
ity, there are few reports in which researchers have examined
the use of a task analysis as a self-monitoring device for
students with disabilities (i.e., teaching students to mark off
steps as the student performs the skills outlined in the task
analysis). In one example, Gaylord-Ross, Haring, Breen,
and Pitts-Conway (1984) designed a social skill interven-
tion that utilized a task analysis to teach leisure skill activities
(e.g., use of a handheld video game) to two high school
students with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities.
Although those students did not use the task analysis as a
self-monitoring tool, both of the students with disabilities
generalized social use of the leisure objects to novel peers,
and one student was able to generalize some of the interac-
tion skills that were embedded in the task analysis, even
when no object was included in the generalization probes.
In addition to task analysis, activity schedules and social
scripts (e.g., Bryan & Gast, 2000; Krantz & McClannahan,
1993; Loveland & Tunali, 1991; Thiemann & Goldstein,
2004) have been used to promote social and communica-
tion skills in students with autism. Krantz and McClannahan
1
Legacy Charter School, Chicago, IL
2
University of Kansas, Kansas City
Corresponding Author:
Debra Kamps, Juniper Gardens Children’s Project, University of Kansas,
444 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101
Email: dkamps@ku.edu
132 Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 26(3)
(1998) reported the ability of three children with autism to
initiate social interactions with adults when a textual script
was embedded in their photographic activity schedules.
Pierce and Schriebman (1994) similarly reported a variety
of daily living skills that could be taught to students with
autism using a pictorial self-management system. Routines
such as setting the table, getting dressed, and making the
bed were taught using picture cues as a stimuli to teach the
corresponding behavior. The authors also showed the utility
of the pictorial self-management system by changing the
pictures in the schedules so the students could follow novel
routines once use of the picture schedule was learned.
Self-management intervention has been shown by many
researchers to be effective in increasing skills and interac-
tions as well. For example, Koegel, Koegel, Hurley, and
Frea (1992) used a portable self-monitoring device worn on
the wrist to increase social responsiveness in four students
with autism ranging in age from 6 to 11 years.
Researchers also have shown the effectiveness of visual-
cuing and social-scripting strategies in groups including typical
peers. In an early study, Strain, Kohler, Story, and Danko
(1994) reported the effective use of a self-management
strategy (i.e., placement of small photo of the child into a
container with each use of a social skill) with young chil-
dren with autism in multiple settings. The child’s use of
self-management was shown effective at increasing the
social interactions between preschoolers with autism and
general preschool peers within school and home settings.
Kamps and colleagues (1998, 2002) have shown that using
visual prompting systems with peers as prompters are effec-
tive for increasing engagement and verbalizations in social
activities. Licciardello, Harchik, and Luiselli (2008) also
demonstrated the effectiveness of using peers to prompt
social interactions in natural settings. Other researchers have
shown the use of text cues and social scripts (Thiemann &
Goldstein, 2004); picture cards (Kohler, Greteman,
Raschke, & Highnam, 2007); written social stories serving
as scripts (Delano & Snell, 2006; Scattone, Tingstrom, &
Wilczynski, 2006); video modeling (Bellini, Akullian, &
Hopf, 2007; Maione & Mirenda, 2006); and video enhanced
activity schedules (Kimball, Kinney, Taylor, & Stromer,
2004) to be effective interventions for increasing engagement
in functional activities and social interactions with peers.
Clearly, the brief literature review confirms positive
instructional outcomes when self-monitoring strategies, task
analysis, and scripts are utilized with children with autism.
The purpose of the current study was to test the effects of the
use of task analysis with added features of self-monitoring
and prompting for verbalizations with peers in three sepa-
rate social activities, as well as to determine maintenance and
generalization of task completion and communication
when the visually presented task analysis was systemati-
cally faded. A second purpose was to test the effects of the
use of social scripts in two of the three activities as an added
component of the intervention to increase appropriate lan-
guage with peers during sessions and to fade the social
scripts to increase independent language use. The study was
designed to add to the literature in which researchers
demonstrate effects for multicomponent interventions, those
designed to combine single effective strategies into “pack-
aged” interventions to improve their impact on the perfor mance
of children with autism in social activities with typical peers.
Independent completion of the task steps, peer-directed ver-
balizations, and activity engagement were measured outcomes
of this intervention package.
Method
Participants and Settings
Students with autism. Two students with autism, Robert
and Maria, participated in this study. Both students were
nine years old, attended public schools, and had a diagnosis
of autistic disorder. The diagnoses had been given by clini-
cal psychologists several years prior to the study. No IQ
scores were made available; however, both participants
were considered to be high functioning by their teachers.
Robert and Maria were able to decode reading passages
approximating grade level, and they had approximate grade
level skills for most rote academic skills such as spelling,
addition, subtraction, writing names, and copying short
sentences. Both students made between 3- and 5-word
spontaneous initiations and could respond appropriately to
yes/no questions about their environment. Maria often per-
severated on inappropriate topics (i.e., wanting to wear
glasses, wanting to be a baby), whereas Robert appeared
more withdrawn and rarely conversed with adults or gen-
eral education peers even when others initiated conversations
with him. Teaching staff reported that the students rarely
played with other children on the playground or during free
time. In addition, Robert and Maria engaged in verbal and
postural stereotypy in home, school, and community set-
tings. The students had previous exposure to social skill
interventions, but they continued to exhibit deficits in com-
munication across multiple settings. Parental consent and
child verbal assent were obtained before this study began.
General education peers. Robert and Maria each had his/
her own separate peer group for all social activities. For the
study, volunteers were recruited from each student’s respec-
tive general education classroom to form peer groups.
Maria’s peer group (n = 6) consisted of all girls ranging in
age from 8 to 9 years. Robert’s peer group (n = 9) included
both boys and girls ranging in age from 6 to 9 years. Two or
three peers at a time participated in each of the activities with
Maria and Robert. Parental consent and child assent were
obtained for the neurotypical peer participation in the study.
Parker and Kamps 133
Treatment providers and observers. The treatment providers
and observers included (a) the first author (experimenter),
who had worked as a paraprofessional with both Robert and
Maria prior to this study; (b) an undergraduate research assis-
tant with no prior contact with the students with autism or
their peers; and (c) the second author, a PhD-level associate
who worked with a university-based research organization.
Settings. This study began in the summer, while both stu-
dents attended the public school’s summer school program
for children with autism, and continued into the school year.
Each student spent time in a special education classroom
and a general education classroom. The activities for the
study for Robert (games and cooking), however, were con-
ducted in a separate area in the school, away from the
classrooms. Activities occurred during the school day in the
summer and after school in the fall. The games and cooking
activities for Maria took place at her home after school
during the summer and fall. A variety of community fast-
food restaurants were used for the third activity setting.
Transportation to Maria’s home and to restaurants for all
participants was provided by the researchers with parent
permission. Some peers lived in close proximity and were
able to walk to Maria’s house after school.
Materials
Social activities. Games, cooking, and restaurant activities
were chosen by the teacher for the students based on input
from the parents and teachers of the children with autism
and were seen as beneficial for teaching functional skills
that could generalize across school, home, and community
environments. The inclusion of peers provided a social con-
text for the functional activities. During the game activity,
students chose from three similar games: Trouble®, Sorry®,
and Topple®. In the cooking activity, some of the materials
differed between the two students based on the setting for
this activity. For Maria, the oven, timer, bowls, and utensils
in her home kitchen were used. Robert’s cooking activity
took place in the school and utilized a toaster oven to bake
the food items as well as timer, bowls, and utensils provided
by the experimenter. The cooking activity for both students
allowed for a choice of three recipes, each written on a 4 × 11
inch piece of construction paper that gave step-by-step
instructions on how to make brownies, chocolate chip cook-
ies, or peanut butter cookies. Each recipe contained 12 or
13 steps, and the three were considered of equal difficulty.
For the restaurant activity, all participants were given two
dollars to independently order a small drink and choice of
side order using the overhead menus at the restaurants.
Task analysis materials. A task analysis that sequentially
outlined the steps needed to complete an activity was cre-
ated for each of the three activities. The task analysis for
each activity was printed on 8.5 × 11 inch typing paper and
laminated. Each step on the task analysis was composed of
a number followed by an instruction. An empty box was
placed to the left of the number so that students could
check the box once the step had been performed. In total,
there were 8 steps on the task analysis to complete the
game activity, 22 for cooking (19 for Maria at home with
the adult controlling the kitchen oven for baking), and 12
for the restaurant activity. In addition to directions for
engaging in the activity, each task analysis included at least
2 or 3 steps that required verbal responses from the stu-
dents. For example, a step on the task analysis for games
directed the students to “Talk to friends.” Ten social com-
ments to facilitate verbal responses were written on a single
“language card” that was placed in front of the participants
with autism for use during these steps, including such com-
ments as “What game do you want to play?” or “I want to
make chocolate chip cookies.”
Social scripts materials. The purpose of the language card
was to remind the students with autism to talk during the
games activity and give them examples of appropriate social
comments. The language card was discontinued after ten
intervention sessions in Robert’s games activity because of
the high degree of experimenter prompting that was required
to direct Robert to refer to the card. In addition, Robert
often read only the first one or two comments on the card,
and so the comments were not varied and became repeti-
tive. The experimenter also wanted to increase the frequency
and topography of peer interactions toward the student with
autism, and the language card did not facilitate that out-
come. Therefore, the researchers revised the language card
component to include the use of social scripts for the “Talk
to friends” step in the task analysis. Rather than a single lan-
guage card with a list of 10 social comments, 25 separate
“social scripts” cards were introduced, each with single com-
ments or questions for conversations. Each script was written
on approximately 1 × 6 inch strips of paper that could be
read by either the students with autism or their peers. Many
of the scripts were written based on activities of interest to
Robert and Maria. In addition, the peers and students with
autism gave feedback to develop some of the scripts based
on other interests. The scripts also included specific com-
ments related to the various games and activities during the
group. Examples included: “This is a fun game.” “If you get
a six, you go again.” “OK, guys, let’s try not to knock it
over.” “What is your favorite restaurant?” “Do you want to
go outside later?” “My favorite movie is . . . .” The 25 scripts
were rotated randomly each session. Scripts were used by
the target students and their peers starting with 6 per stu-
dent, increasing up to 10 per student per session. The
students and peers were allowed to read a social script at
any time during the game or restaurant sessions once the
social scripts were distributed. To self-monitor the use of
the social scripts, a record sheet, consisting of from 6 to 10
134 Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 26(3)
boxes, and a marker were given to the students with autism
and their peers.
Social scripts were implemented for Robert in Session
15 for games and used to start the first activity (games) for
Maria once she began intervention in Session 5. In addition
to implementing the social scripts in the games activity,
they were included when use of appropriate language did
not improve from baseline. This occurred in the interven-
tion phase of the restaurant activities for Robert (the 9th
session in that activity) and Maria (the 11th session in that
activity). The scripts were not used in either group’s cook-
ing activity because appropriate language use improved
over baseline with the language card.
Experimental Procedures
Baseline. Baseline for the games and cooking activities
was arranged such that the students and peers were given
the direction to stay at a table that contained all of the mate-
rials needed for the corresponding activity (choice of
games, cooking materials, recipes, etc.). A timer was set for
15 min. Before starting the timer, each student selected a
choice for a break activity (e.g., video games, free time,
playing football/outside, stickers) to engage in after the
timer went off. Access to the break was not contingent on
completion of the baseline activity. The experimenter did
not intervene for stereotypic behaviors such as verbal and
postural stereotypy during baseline. The only time the
experimenter intervened during the 15 min was to redirect
students to stay within the activity area.
For the restaurant condition, baseline consisted of giving
the participants money as well as instructions on the food
and drinks that they could purchase at the fast-food restau-
rant. The experimenter did not intervene to help students
purchase the food items for approximately 3 to 5 min
(depending on the length of the line at the counter). If
between 3 and 5 min had passed and the students and peers
still had not purchased the items, the experimenter inter-
vened with verbal prompts so that the students and peers
were able to retrieve their food and drink from the counter.
Once the students were seated, the experimenter gave the
instruction for the students to stay at the table for 5 min.
Once again, the experimenter intervened or interacted with
the students and peers only if they needed to be redirected
to stay at the table. No break activity was offered during the
baseline condition of the restaurant activity because of the
temporal difficulties associated with transportation to and
from the restaurant.
Teaching use of the task analysis. The primary interven-
tion consisted of a written task analysis that was given to
the student with autism to guide her/him through the activ-
ity, with the students checking each step as it was com pleted.
Training occurred during one 45-min session in the actual
area used for the activity, and it included all peers. The
experimenter used graduated guidance, verbal prompts,
and positive practice to teach Robert and Maria how to
use the task analysis for self-monitoring. During this ini-
tial teaching session, approximately 40 or more prompts
were provided to both Robert and Maria. Data on the par-
ticipants’ behavior were not collected during the training
session.
After each student independently completed and self-
monitored at least 80% of the task-analyzed steps in a given
condition (i.e., 3–5 sessions), the peers also were trained to
prompt the target students. Peers were trained to use both
verbal and nonverbal prompting strategies. Verbal prompts
(modeled initially by the experimenter) included saying,
“What’s next?” or “What are we supposed to do now?”
Nonverbal prompts primarily consisted of pointing to steps
on the task analysis and waiting. Because completion of a
task-analyzed step was scored only if the student with
autism followed the step independently, the peers were
taught to avoid premature prompting and wait for the stu-
dent with autism to independently initiate the step. One way
this was done was by teaching the peers to silently count to
five before prompting the student with autism. Peers also
were taught to use modeling and independent practice to
increase students’ independent completion. For example,
when the student with autism did not respond or appeared
not to know what to do next, peers were instructed to show
the student with autism how to perform the step and then to
allow the student to practice the step independently. Once
peers began prompting, direct prompting from the experi-
menter to the students with autism was minimal. However,
because of erratic verbal stereotypy, Maria occasionally
required verbal prompts from the experimenter to help her
stay on-task and reduce stereotypy.
Teaching use of the social scripts. The experimenter mod-
eled the use of the social scripts to the students with autism
and their peers by picking up one of the social scripts,
saying a friend’s name, waiting for him/her to look, reading
the script, waiting for an answer (when appropriate), placing
the script in the discard pile, and checking one box on the
recording sheet. Modeling was provided until the students
and peers were able to use the social scripts correctly and
independently, approximately three sessions each for Robert
and Maria’s groups.
Intervention sessions. Each intervention session lasted app-
roximately 30 min. During the first few sessions of the
int ervention, the experimenter gave explicit verbal and
physical prompts to the students with autism to continue
teaching self-monitoring using the task analysis. Prompting
was provided to both students in 2 to 5 sessions for the
games and cooking activities. Prompting by the adult con-
tinued as needed during the restaurant activity. The peers
also served as prompters for the completion of the steps in
Parker and Kamps 135
the activity and as conversation partners (to initiate and to
respond to the students with autism).
At the end of each session (i.e., once all the steps in the
task analysis were completed), each student was given a
choice of preferred activities for a break taken with her/his
peer group. These were the same choices used during base-
line; however, during intervention, obtaining the break was
contingent on completion of the activity. Once again, no
break was provided in the intervention condition of the res-
taurant activity because of the temporal difficulties associated
with transportation to and from the restaurant.
Fading task analysis and social scripts. Once the students
with autism were able to successfully and independently
self-monitor using the task analysis of the activity, the writ-
ten steps were gradually faded by incrementally eliminating
the last few words on each written instruction of the task
analysis. As an example, the four increments of fading for
the task analysis of the game are presented in Figure 1. Once
students could perform the task analysis without any writ-
ten prompts other than the boxes and numbers (fourth fade),
the written list of steps was removed completely. The exp-
erimenter determined readiness for fading based on several
consecutive successes with the task-analyzed steps. Fading
of the written task analysis began for Robert in Session 16
of games and ended in Session 25; for cooking, fading
began in Session 10 and ended in 18. For Maria, fading of
the written task analysis in the games activity began in Ses-
sion 14 and ended in 20; for cooking, fading occurred from
the 16th to 23rd session in that activity.
Fading of the social scripts differed from fading of the
task analysis component. Instead of fading the text on the
social scripts as in the task analysis, the number of social
scripts given to the students and peers was decreased, whereas
the number of social interactions the participants had to
record on their record sheets remained the same. Thus, at
one point in the fading procedure, each member of the
group may have been given 7 social scripts but had to fill
out 10 boxes to record social initiations. The timeline of the
fading of the social scripts for Robert ran from Sessions
22 through 27 in the games activity and from Sessions 14
through 23 for Maria. Initial fading of the social scripts for
Maria in the restaurant began in the 13th session in that set-
ting, but the study concluded prior to complete fading.
Eventually none of the students or peers were given social
scripts and were required to record 10 interactions on their
record sheets during the game activity. The recording sheet
was never faded out as part of this study.
Design
A multiple baseline probe design (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968;
Kazdin, 1989) across three activities was used to demonstrate
treatment effects. The activities consisted of playing games,
cooking, and eating at a restaurant. Robert and Maria consti-
tuted two separate cases utilizing two separate peer groups,
thus there was a replication of the experimental design.
Data for the number of completed steps in each task
analysis were used as criteria for implementing the interven-
tion in the next setting within the multiple baseline design.
After a minimum of 3 sessions with at least half of the task-
analyzed steps completed independently, the intervention
package was implemented in the second activity. When the
Full task analysis First fade
1) What game do you want to play? 1) What game do you want to
2) I want to play . . . 2) I want to
3) Get the game. 3) Get the
4) Put game together. 4) Put game
5) What color do you want to be? 5) What color do you
6) I want to be . . . 6) I want to
7) Play game and talk to friends. 7) Play game and talk
8) Put game away. 8) Put game
Second fade Third fade
1) What game 1)
2) I 2)
3) Get 3)
4) Put 4)
8) Put 8)
Fourth fade
…………
Figure 1. Example of fading for games task analysis
136 Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 26(3)
student met criteria in the second social activity, the inter-
vention was implemented during the third activity.
Data Collection
The experimenter used a small video camera to record all
sessions during the study so that data collection could occur
at a later time. The video camera was set on a tripod for
cooking and game activities and held by the research assis-
tant at restaurants. Students became accustomed to the
video camera very quickly. The primary dependent variable
consisted of task completion measured as the frequency of
completed steps on the task analysis. A “+” indicated suc-
cessful completion and was given if the student independently
initiated the step within 30 s of completing the previous
step and was engaged with either a peer or activity materi-
als for an average of 7 out of every 10 s required to finish
the step. There was no time limit to finish any step, as long
as the participant remained engaged.
Peer-directed verbalizations. The percent of intervals with
peer-directed verbalizations was measured as a collateral
effect of the intervention. Data on peer-directed verbaliza-
tions were collected in 10-s intervals and scored whenever
the student with autism made an appropriate verbalization
directed toward a peer within the interval. Stereotypic or
inappropriate verbalizations were not counted as peer-
directed verbalizations. Verbalizations were not used as
criteria for determining when to intervene in the second and
third activities. However, this measure was used to determine
the need for the addition of the social scripts enhancement to
the intervention package for two activities.
Activity engagement. The percent of activity engagement
also was monitored as a collateral effect for the intervention.
Activity engagement was defined as appropriate student
engagement with a peer or materials for at least 7 s of a 10-s
interval. To determine this, when the child stopped engage-
ment, researchers noted the number of seconds elapsing in
disengagement before the next 10-s interval started. Activity
engagement included intervals when the students were (a)
verbally engaged with a peer about the activity or engaging
in an appropriate conversation topic not related to the corre-
sponding activity (e.g., talking about what they wanted to do
after finishing the activity, topics related to leisure activities),
and/or (b) nonverbally engaged with peers or the activity
(e.g., watching a peer take a turn, reading the task analysis or
social script, manipulating the materials appropriately, fol-
lowing the steps in the task analysis). For each session,
activity engagement and peer-directed verbalizations were
measured for only the first 15 minutes of the cooking and
games activities and for the first 5 minutes of the restaurant
activity (once the group was seated). This difference in mea-
surement time for the restaurant activity engagement was
because of the shortened amount of time at the table follow-
ing waiting in line and ordering. Because the length of time
was different, percent of intervals was used as the metric for
these two collateral behaviors.
Interobserver agreement (IOA) was obtained by having
the undergraduate research assistant score at least 25% of
the sessions in each treatment condition. Prior to collecting
data for reliability, the experimenter reviewed behavioral
definitions with the undergraduate research assistant, and
the behaviors were discussed following observation of the
students during several sessions. A practice scoring session
was conducted with additional discussion of the definitions.
Then the experimenter and research assistant viewed and
scored the videotapes simultaneously, but independently.
For the interval data, if a response was scored within the
same or one frame (10-s interval) of the other observer, that
response was counted as occurring for both observers within
the same interval. This procedure was used to account for
behaviors that occurred within 1 to 2 seconds of the next
10-s interval. The number of agreements was then divided
by the total number of intervals and multiplied by 100%.
IOA for peer-directed verbalizations in baseline ranged from
92 to 99% and from 83 to 88% in intervention. IOA means
for Robert were 92%, 96%, and 94% in baseline and 87%,
88%, and 83% in intervention respectively, for games, cook-
ing, and in the restaurant. Maria’s baseline IOA means were
93%, 94%, and 99%, and her intervention means were 86%,
87%, and 84% across tasks. IOA for activity engagement in
baseline ranged from 81 to 100% and from 91 to 100% in
intervention. Robert’s baseline IOA means for engagement
were 87%, 92%, 100% respectively, for games, cooking,
and in the restaurant; intervention means were 98%, 99%,
and 100%. Maria’s engagement IOA means in baseline were
84%, 81%, and 95%; intervention means were 96%, 91%,
and 100% respectively across tasks.
For the task analysis data, each step was coded as an
agreement or disagreement. The number of agreements was
then divided by the total number of steps and multiplied by
100. IOA for the task analyses was 100% for both students
across all phases.
Results
Overall, for both Robert and Maria, the use of self-monitoring
on the task analysis resulted in higher levels of task comple-
tion across all three activities. Activity engagement and
peer-directed verbalizations also increased from baseline
when either the task analysis or the language social script
intervention was in place.
Completion of Steps in the Task Analysis
Figure 2 offers a graphic representation of Robert’s comple-
tion of steps on the task analysis using self-monitoring and
the language card (or social scripts) for all three activities.
The total number of steps completed on the task analysis
Parker and Kamps 137
during the games activity increased from 1 per session during
baseline to an average of 7 in intervention (8 possible steps).
There was only a marginal difference between means for
the original language card intervention (M = 6) versus the
revised social scripts (M = 7) during the games activity.
During the cooking activity, Robert’s average number of
completed steps increased from 0 during baseline to 17
during the task analysis intervention (22 possible steps).
The number of steps completed in the restaurant activity
also increased from the baseline mean of 3 per session to 5
in intervention (12 total steps). Because the social scripts
were used only in the last session of the restaurant interven-
tion, there were not enough data points to report any effects
for the social scripts in combination with the task analysis
in this setting.
For Maria (see Figure 3), when the written task analysis
with self-monitoring and social scripts were implemented
jointly in the games activity, completion of steps increased
from an average of 1 step during baseline to 7 steps during
intervention (8 possible steps). During the last five sessions,
Maria completed the games task analysis with 100% accuracy.
When the intervention package was introduced in the cooking
activity, Maria’s average number of steps completed (19 pos-
sible) increased from 0 during baseline to 14 during
intervention. This trend also was seen in the restaurant social
skills activity (12 possible steps). The average number of steps
completed increased from 3 during baseline to 6 during inter-
vention. With the implementation of the social scripts during
the 11th session in that setting, the mean number of completed
steps increased, but with a great deal of variability.
Figure 2. Completed steps in task analysis for Robert
Figure 3. Completed steps in task analysis for Maria
138 Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 26(3)
Activity Engagement
Robert’s activity engagement in the games increased from
87% in baseline (range = 74–100%) to 98% during inter-
vention (range = 88–100%). There was no observable
difference in engagement when the language cards were
used versus the social scripts. During the cooking activity,
Robert’s engagement rose from 24% in baseline (range =
11–51%) to 98% during intervention (range = 93–100%).
The percentage of time that Maria was engaged in the
games activity increased from a mean of 64% during base-
line (range = 39–94%) to 97% during intervention (range =
71–100%). Activity engagement also increased in the cook-
ing activity from a baseline mean of 31% (range = 9–63%)
to 88% during intervention (range = 66–100%). Because
engagement during the restaurant activity included sitting
at a table and eating with peers as appropriate, both Robert
and Maria displayed more than 95% engagement in both
baseline and intervention sessions.
Peer-Directed Verbalizations
As depicted in Figure 4, Robert’s verbalizations during base-
line in the games activity averaged 34% as compared to 49%
throughout intervention. There was no difference in peer-
directed verbalizations between the original language card
(M = 47%) and the social scripts (M = 49%) interventions
that were implemented along with self-monitoring follow-
ing the task analysis. However, the variety of social utterances
appeared to expand when the social scripts replaced the lan-
guage card. For example, while playing the games, Robert
repeatedly read the same 2 or 3 comments from the lan-
guage card versus reading and responding to more than 20
different comments and questions using the social scripts.
When the task analysis with self-monitoring and original
language card was used in the cooking activity, peer-
directed verbalizations increased from a baseline mean of
18% of intervals to 51% during intervention. Because of
the low number of outings (n = 4) to the restaurant and the
use of social scripts only in the last session, no clear differ-
ence in the peer-directed verbalizations was noted across
conditions, and the percentages remained low.
Maria showed increases in peer-directed verbalizations
in both the games and cooking activities once the interven-
tion package was initiated (see Figure 5). For the games
activity, Maria’s average percentage of verbalizations
increased from 22% during baseline to 41% when the inter-
vention was in place. In the cooking activity, Maria’s
peer-directed verbalizations in baseline showed a declining
trend with an average of 9%, which increased to 31% during
intervention. Maria displayed little peer-directed verbal-
ization in the restaurant activity in baseline (M = 2%).
Verbalizations increased during the first four sessions of the
intervention phase to an average of 9.5%, and increased to
57% using the social scripts across the last five sessions.
Discussion
The use of task analyses with self-monitoring by two chil-
dren with autism was examined across three social tasks
with peers. The use of social scripts also was examined for
two of the tasks for each child to determine effects on the
quantity of verbalizations with peers. Analysis of the results
shows that the task analysis and self-monitoring interven-
tion increased the number of steps that each student was
able to perform independently for three social activities
with peers for Maria and for two activities for Robert. Thus
Figure 4. Peer-directed verbalizations for Robert
Parker and Kamps 139
the students were better able to follow a social activity seq-
uence from beginning to end. In addition, self-monitoring
using the task-analyzed activity steps and language card
alone increased both students’ activity engagement and
peer-directed vocalizations for the cooking activity. The
subsequent change to “social scripts” resulted in increases
in activity engagement and peer-directed verbalizations for
Maria in the games and restaurant activities and somewhat
for Robert in the games activity. Robert’s language had
increased initially using just the written task analysis, self-
monitoring, and language card, but then it began to decrease.
It increased again using the social scripts. Unfortunately,
the study was discontinued because of the end of the school
year before any change in verbalizations could be seen for
Robert in the restaurant using the social scripts. Scrutiny of
the findings also revealed that the task analysis procedure
was able to be completely faded from two of the tasks, and
both students were able to continue to complete activities.
Similarly, the use of social scripts was completely faded in
the same task for both students (i.e., games). Students con-
tinued to use a self-monitoring component (check boxes for
verbal interactions) and were able to maintain increased
language use over baseline levels. The demonstration of
fading of the intervention with maintenance of skills is an
additional contribution of the study.
Student Outcomes
The written task analysis of activity steps and self-monitoring
served as an effective road map for the students with
autism to navigate through a variety of social scenarios.
Moreover, social interactions such as “What game do you
want to play?” and “What do you want to cook?” were
embedded in the task analysis and learned by the students
in a similar way that “Look” and “Watch me” were embed-
ded in photographic activity schedules by Krantz and
McClannahan (1998). The intervention also taught the
students game skills in initiating, organizing, and putting
away the game, in addition to maintaining game playing
and turn taking. The most dramatic improvements were
seen in the cooking activity for both Robert and Maria,
where activity engagement, peer-directed vocalizations,
and completion of the cooking task were markedly improved
using just the written task analysis, self-monitoring, and
language card intervention.
Unfortunately, there were not enough data points to
observe a noticeable trend in behavioral improvement
during the restaurant activity. Few data points were col-
lected in restaurants for both Robert and Maria, and the
busy nature of the setting proved difficult for providing
independent practice and graduated guidance for ordering,
waiting in line, and getting the food. Researchers must
allow for more time to conduct interventions in multiple
settings, and consider multiple trainers in busy settings. In
addition, future researchers examining social community
skills may attempt to role-play scenarios in a more con-
trolled environment for a few sessions as a way of priming
setting-specific behavior before attempting to use the skills
in the community (Frederick-Dugan, Test, & Varn, 1991).
Even though Robert and Maria were not able to fully
master and then fade out the task analysis for the restaurant
activity, they did display progress in learning the steps on
the task analysis with minimal experimenter intervention.
An encouraging finding with the written task analysis used
by Robert and Maria was that it was able to be faded in a
similar way to the fading of photographic activity schedules
and social scripts in prior research (Bryan & Gast, 2000;
Figure 5. Peer-directed verbalizations for Maria
140 Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 26(3)
Clarke, Dunlap, & Vaughn, 1999; Krantz & McClannahan,
1993; Pierce & Schriebman, 1994).
Similar to prior research on the use of visual cuing strat-
egies such as pictures and text to teach children with autism
to relate to stimuli in their environment (Clarke et al., 1999;
Krantz & McClannahan, 1998; McAdam & Cuvo, 1994;
Storey & Garff, 1997; Thiemann & Goldstein, 2001), an
exciting finding in this study was improved conversation
skills for the students, due in part to the social scripts added
as a component of the intervention in two settings. For
example, once all of the social scripts were faded and Maria
was required to make at least ten initiations or responses to
peers, she consistently began to use verbalizations that she
first heard used by one of her peers. Thus if one of her peers
asked, “Maria, do you like math or science better?” (not
scripted), after appropriately responding to the peer who
asked the question, Maria would then turn to a third peer
and ask, “Donna, do you like math or science better?” The
experimenter also observed improved quantity and variety
in Robert’s language when the social scripts were imple-
mented following a downward trend in language during the
game activity. Advantages of the social scripts used in the
study were that (a) some were developed by the experi-
menter to be of interest to the students with autism, (b) many
were developed by the students and peers themselves, and
(c) many were related to the activities themselves—all fea-
tures to incorporate an element of contextual fit and social
validity to the scripts. A limitation is that this component
was not implemented across all three activities. Future
research with additional measures of language may help
determine whether this type of learning is common when
social scripts are used. This might include language tran-
scripts to determine novel language use beyond trained
phrases, which would add additional validity to the inter-
vention and use of scripts for children with autism. Other
researchers may want to examine if the social scripts record-
ing sheets also can be faded, in addition to the actual scripts,
while maintaining high levels of conversation between
peers and children with autism. Implementation of this pro-
cedure with more specific criteria for mastery and with
more consistency throughout a multiple baseline design
would help to determine more clearly the effects of this
intervention.
A final outcome is that the present study further adds to
the current research on the utility of peer-prompting inter-
ventions (Goldstein, English, Shafer, & Kaczmarek, 1995;
Kamps et al., 2002; Sasso & Rude, 1988). The peer groups
for both Robert and Maria were able to help the students
learn to use both the written task analysis and the social
script interventions. Anecdotally, the experimenters observed
that the majority of time spent with the peers throughout the
study was focused on teaching them appropriate prompting
and social interaction strategies (Pierce & Schreibman, 1997)
such as eye contact, turn taking, and verbally reinforcing
social interactions and activity engagement to help the stu-
dents with autism follow the task analysis for each activity.
In particular, the experimenter frequently prompted the peers
to allow “wait time” for the students with autism to perform
steps on the task analysis independently so that they could
reach mastery of the steps. This procedure is similar to time
delay procedures demonstrated as effective in prior research
(e.g., Schuster et al., 1998). Additional measures of social
behavior (e.g., turn taking, sharing, assisting) in future stud-
ies would determine if multicomponent interventions in
peer groups improved those behaviors as well.
Limitations
A primary limitation of the study was the small sample size.
Because this study examined intervention effects on only
two participants, it is difficult to predict if the interventions
used would be effective for similar students with autism,
lower functioning students with autism, or students with
other social deficits. A second limitation is the short number
of sessions in the third activity at the restaurant. Task com-
pletion, activity engagement, and appropriate language
improved during the third activity (restaurant) for Maria,
though the task analysis steps were not mastered and social
scripts appeared to be a necessary enhancement for both task
completion and language. Additionally, the linear improve-
ment in task completion during baseline and the extreme
variability in intervention data limit the conclusions that can
be drawn for Maria in the restaurant activity. Similarly, anal-
ysis of the multiple baseline graphs for Robert shows
experimental control across only two activities, diminishing
conclusions that can be drawn for him as well.
Other limitations that must be considered include that
peer prompting and adult prompting were not measured.
Fidelity in the peers’ implementation of prompting, model-
ing, independent practice, and wait time may have shown
differences in successful completion of the steps in the task
analysis, activity engagement, and peer-directed verbaliza-
tions for various combinations of peer groups. Robert’s
group was able to perform the games and cooking activities
with the experimenter not present in the room; however,
Maria required consistent monitoring. As an intervention
package was used in this study, future studies are needed to
address the influence of additional strategies (e.g., peer
prompting, reinforcing activity contingent on completion)
for supporting successful participation with peers. Although
social validity measures were not collected during this
study, sociometric ratings for the target students by class-
mates as a way to determine if peers were more accepting
outside of the intervention settings, could be incorporated
into future research. A final limitation of this study is that
generalization and maintenance probes were not conducted;
Parker and Kamps 141
however, fading of both written task analysis steps and
social scripts occurred for two of the three activities for
both students, suggesting maintenance of skills on a short
term basis. Evaluation of the generalization of language and
interaction skills to untrained settings would enhance future
studies. In addition, studies determining the most efficient
training procedures and additional social problem-solving
skills would add to our knowledge of acquisition and gener-
alization of social competence for students with autism.
Conclusion
In this study, two students with autism were taught three
highly functional skills (i.e., games, cooking, and ordering/
eating in restaurants). Written task analyses with self-moni-
toring in social activities with typical peers were found to be a
promising intervention for increasing independent task com-
pletion. The addition of social scripts appeared to increase
communication with peers, but insufficient data were col-
lected. Thus, this component is promising but needs additional
study. Recommendations include continued use of visual task
analysis of activity steps and self-monitoring to promote
improved task completion and verbal interactions of children
with autism in natural settings with typical peers; additional
research using social scripts in peer groups is necessary.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the
authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
This research was supported by Grant #H023C00024 from the
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, U. S.
Department of Education.
References
Anderson, S. R., Taras, M., & Cannon, B. O. (1996). Teaching new
skills to young children with autism. In C. Maurice, G. Green,
& S. C. Luce (Eds.), Behavioral intervention for young children
with autism (pp. 181–194). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current
dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97.
Beglinger, L., & Smith, T. (2005). Concurrent validity of social
subtype and IQ after early intensive behavioral intervention in
children with autism: A preliminary investigation. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35, 295–303.
Bellini, S., Akullian, J., & Hopf, A. (2007). Increasing social engage-
ment in young children with autism spectrum disorders using
video self-modeling. School Psychology Review, 36, 80–90.
Borden, M. C., & Ollendick, T. H. (1994). An examination of the
validity of social subtypes in autism. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 24, 23–37.
Bryan, L. C., & Gast, D. L. (2000). Teaching on-task and on-
schedule behaviors to high-functioning children with autism
via picture activity schedules. Journal of Autism and Develop-
mental Disorders, 30, 553–567.
Clarke, S., Dunlap, G., & Vaughn, B. (1999). Family-centered,
assessment-based intervention to improve behavior during an
early morning routine. Journal of Positive Behavior Interven-
tions, 1, 235–241.
Delano, M., & Snell, M. (2006). The effects of social stories on the
social engagement of children with autism. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 8, 29–42.
Frederick-Dugan, A., Test, D. W., & Varn, L. (1991). Acquisition
of purchasing skills using a calculator by students who are
mentally retarded. Education and Training in Mental Retarda-
tion, 26, 381–387.
Garff, J. T., & Storey, K. (1998). The use of self-management
strategies for increasing the appropriate hygiene of persons
with disabilities in supported employment settings. Education
and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Dis-
abilities, 33, 179–188.
Gaylord-Ross, R. J., Haring, T. G., Breen, C., & Pitts-Conway, V.
(1984). The training and generalization of social interaction
skills with autistic youth. Journal of Applied Behavior Analy-
sis, 17, 229–247.
Goldstein, H., English, K., Shafer, K., & Kaczmarek, L. (1995).
Use of peers as change agents in communicative interactions
with preschoolers with disabilities. Preventing School Failure,
39, 16–20.
Kamps, D., Kravits, T., Lopez, A. G., Kemmerer, K., Potucek, J.,
& Harrell, L. G. (1998). What do the peers think? Social valid-
ity of peer-mediated programs. Education and Treatment of
Children, 21, 107–134.
Kamps, D., Potucek, J., Dugan, E., Kravits, T., Gonzalez-Lopez, A.,
Garcia, J., Garrison, L. (2002). Peer training to facilitate social
interaction for students with autism. Exceptional Children, 68,
173–187.
Kazdin, A. E. (1989). Behavior modification in applied settings
(3rd ed.). Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Kimball, J. W., Kinney, E. M., Taylor, B. A., & Stromer, R. (2004).
Video enhanced activity schedules for children with autism: A
promising package for teaching social skills. Education and
Treatment of Children, 27, 280–298.
Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L., Hurley, C., & Frea, W. D. (1992).
Improving social skills and disruptive behavior in children
with autism through self-management. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 25, 341–353.
Kohler, F., Greteman, C., Raschke, D., & Highnam, C. (2007).
Using a buddy skills package to increase the social interac-
tions between a preschooler with autism and her peers. Topics
in Early Childhood Special Education, 27, 155–163.
Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (1993). Teaching children
with autism to initiate to peers: Effects of a script-fading pro-
cedure. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 121–132.
142 Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 26(3)
Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (1998). Social interaction
skills for children with autism: A script-fading procedure for
beginning readers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31,
191–202.
Licciardello, C. C., Harchik, A. E., & Luiselli, J. K. (2008). Social
skills intervention for children with autism during interactive
play at a public elementary school. Education and Treatment
of Children, 31, 27–37.
Loveland, K. A., & Tunali, B. (1991). Social scripts for conversa-
tional interactions in autism and Down syndrome. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 21, 177–186.
Maione, L., & Mirenda, P. (2006). Effects of video modeling and
video feedback on peer-directed social language skills of a
child with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
8, 106–118.
McAdam, D. B., & Cuvo, A. J. (1994). Textual prompts and an
antecedent cue self-management strategy for persons with
mild disabilities. Behavior Modification, 18, 47–65.
Pierce, K., & Schreibman, L. (1994). Teaching daily living skills
to children with autism in unsupervised settings through picto-
rial self-management. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
27, 471–481.
Pierce, K., & Schriebman, L. (1997). Using peer trainers to pro-
mote social behavior in autism: Are they effective at enhancing
multiple social modalities? Focus on Autism and Other Devel-
opmental Disabilities, 12, 207–218.
Sasso, G., & Rude, H. A. (1988). The social effects of integration
on nonhandicapped children. Education and Training in Men-
tal Retardation, 23, 18–23.
Scattone, D., Tingstrom, D. H., & Wilczynski, S. M. (2006). Increas-
ing appropriate social interactions of children with autism spec-
trum disorders using Social Stories. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 21, 211–222.
Schuster, J., Morse, T., Ault, M., Doyle, P., Crawford, M., &
Wolery, M. (1998). Constant time delay with chained tasks:
A review of the literature. Education and Treatment of Chil-
dren, 21, 74–106.
Storey, K., & Garff, J. (1997). The cumulative effect of natural
support strategies and social skills instruction on the integra-
tion of a worker in supported employment. Journal of Voca-
tional Rehabilitation, 9, 143–152.
Strain, P. S., Kohler, F. W., Storey, K., & Danko, C. D. (1994).
Teaching preschoolers with autism to self-monitor their
social interactions: An analysis of results in home and school
settings. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 2,
78–88.
Thiemann, K. S., & Goldstein, H. (2001). Social stories, written
text cues, and video feedback: Effects on social communica-
tion of elementary school-age children with autism. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 425–446.
Thiemann, K. S., & Goldstein, H. (2004). Effects of peer training
and written text cueing on social communication of school-
age children with pervasive developmental disorder. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 126–144.
Volkmar, F., Carter, A., Grossman, J., & Klin, A. (1997). Social
development in autism. In D. Cohen & F. Volkmar (Eds.),
Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders
(pp. 173–194). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Bios
Daniel Parker, MA, MS, is a special education teacher with
Legacy Charter School in Chicago, Illinois. His interests include
literacy and math instruction, programmed instruction, and educa-
tional applications for technology.
Debra Kamps, PhD, is a senior scientist with the Kansas Center
for Autism Research and Training and the Juniper Gardens Chil-
dren’s Project at the University of Kansas. Her interests include
autism, peer networks, social-communication skills, and literacy
instruction.
