The use of conditioned motivating operations (CMOs) in mand training for children with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review

Figures & data

Figure 1. Search strategy and the number of articles included at each stage.

MO = motivating operation; BCIS = behaviour chain interruption strategy; JABA = Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis; TAVB = The Analysis of Verbal Behavior; EJOBA = European Journal of Behavior Analysis

Table 1. Quality assessment of included studies

Study Citation	PART	IV	BSLN	DV	VIS ANAL	EXP CON	IOA	KAP	BR	FID	G/M	SV	Strength rating
1. Albert et al. (2012)	H	H	H	H	A	A	P	N	N	N	P	N	Adequate
2. Alwell et al. (1989)	H	A	H	H	H	H	P	N	N	P	P	N	Adequate
3. Betz et al. (2010)	H	H	H	H	A	H	P	N	N	P	P	N	Adequate
4. Bowen et al. (2012)	H	H	H	H	A	A	P	N	N	P	P	N	Adequate
5. Carnett et al. (2019)	H	H	H	H	A	A	P	N	N	P	P	N	Adequate
6. Carnett and Ingvarsson (2016)	H	A	A	H	H	A	P	N	N	P	P	N	Weak
7. Carnett et al. (2020)	H	H	H	H	A	A	P	N	N	P	P	N	Adequate
8. Choi et al. (2010)	H	H	H	H	A	A	P	N	N	P	P	N	Adequate
9. Drash et al. (1999)	H	H	U	H	A	A	N	N	N	N	N	N	Weak
10. Duker et al. (1994)	H	H	H	H	U	U	P	N	N	N	N	N	Weak
11. Endicott and Higbee (2007)	H	A	A	H	H	H	P	N	N	N	P	N	Adequate
12. Gordon and Shillingsburg (2019)	H	H	H	H	H	H	P	N	N	P	P	N	Strong
13. Hartman and Klatt (2005)	H	H	U	H	A	A	P	N	N	N	P	N	Weak
14. Howlett et al. (2011)	H	H	H	H	H	A	P	N	N	P	P	N	Adequate
15. Ingvarsson and Hollobaugh (2010)	H	H	H	H	H	H	P	N	N	N	P	P	Strong
16. Jessel and Ingvarsson (2021)	H	H	A	H	A	H	P	N	N	P	N	N	Adequate
17. Kahlow et al. (2019)	H	H	H	H	H	H	P	N	N	P	P	P	Strong
18. Koegel et al. (1998)	H	A	H	H	H	H	P	N	N	N	P	P	Adequate
19. Koegel et al. (2010)	H	A	H	H	H	H	P	N	N	N	P	P	Adequate
20. Landa et al. (2020)	H	H	H	H	A	H	P	N	N	N	P	N	Adequate
21. Landa et al. (2017)	H	H	H	H	A	A	P	N	N	N	P	N	Adequate
22. Lechago et al. (2010)	H	H	H	H	A	A	P	N	N	P	P	N	Adequate
23. Lechago et al. (2013)	H	H	H	H	A	A	P	N	N	P	P	N	Adequate
24. Lorah et al. (2014)	H	A	H	H	H	H	P	N	N	N	P	N	Adequate
25. Lorah et al. (2019)	H	A	H	H	H	H	P	N	N	P	P	N	Adequate
26. Lorah et al. (2020)	H	H	H	H	A	H	P	N	N	P	P	N	Adequate
27. Marion et al. (2011)	H	H	U	H	U	U	P	N	N	P	P	P	Weak
28. Marion, Martin, Yu, Buhler, and Kerr (2012)	H	H	H	H	A	A	P	N	N	P	P	P	Adequate
29. Marion, Martin, Yu, Buhler, Kerr, et al. (2012)	H	H	H	H	A	A	P	N	N	P	P	P	Adequate
30. Ostryn and Wolfe (2011a)	H	H	H	H	H	H	P	N	N	P	P	P	Strong
31. Ostryn and Wolfe (2011b)	H	H	H	H	A	A	P	N	N	P	N	N	Adequate
32. Patil et al. (2021)	H	H	A	H	A	H	P	N	N	P	P	P	Adequate
33. Pellecchia and Hineline (2007)	H	H	U	H	H	H	P	N	N	N	P	P	Weak
34. Pistoljevic and Dzanko (2017)	H	A	U	H	H	H	P	N	N	N	P	N	Weak
35. Plavnick and Vitale (2016)	H	H	H	H	A	H	P	N	N	P	P	P	Adequate
36. Pyles et al. (2021)	H	H	H	H	A	H	P	N	N	P	P	N	Adequate
37. Roberts-Pennell and Sigafoos (1999)	H	H	H	H	U	U	N	N	N	N	P	N	Weak
38. Rodriguez et al. (2017)	H	A	H	H	A	H	P	N	N	N	P	N	Adequate
39. Roy-Wsiaki et al. (2010)	H	H	U	A	U	A	P	N	N	P	P	N	Weak
40. Shih et al. (2021)	H	A	H	H	H	H	P	N	N	N	N	N	Weak
41. Shillingsburg, Bowen, and Valentino (2014)	H	H	H	H	H	A	P	N	N	P	P	N	Adequate
42. Shillingsburg, Bowen, Valantino, et al. (2014)	H	H	H	H	H	H	P	N	N	P	P	N	Strong
43. Shillingsburg et al. (2018)	H	H	H	H	H	A	P	N	N	P	P	P	Adequate
44. Shillingsburg et al. (2016)	H	H	H	H	H	H	P	N	N	P	N	N	Adequate
45. Shillingsburg et al. (2019)	H	H	H	H	H	H	P	N	N	P	N	N	Adequate
46. Shillingsburg et al. (2013)	H	H	H	H	H	H	P	N	N	N	N	N	Weak
47. Shillingsburg and Valentino (2011)	H	H	U	H	A	A	N	N	N	N	N	N	Weak
48. Shillingsburg et al. (2011)	H	H	H	H	A	A	P	N	N	N	P	N	Adequate
49. Sidener et al. (2010)	H	H	U	H	U	A	P	N	N	P	N	N	Weak
50. Sigafoos et al. (2013)	H	A	H	H	A	A	P	N	N	P	P	N	Weak
51. Sigafoos and Littlewood (1999)	H	A	H	H	A	A	P	N	N	N	N	N	Weak
52. Somers et al. (2014)	H	H	H	H	A	A	P	N	N	P	P	P	Adequate
53. Sundberg et al. (2002)	H	H	A	H	A	A	N	N	N	N	P	N	Weak
54. Sweeney-Kerwin et al. (2007)	H	A	H	H	A	A	P	N	N	N	P	N	Weak
55. Szmacinski et al. (2018)	H	H	H	H	U	A	P	N	N	P	P	P	Weak
56. Tada and Kato (2005)	H	A	U	H	U	U	P	N	N	N	P	N	Weak
57. Valentino et al. (2019)	H	H	A	H	H	H	P	N	N	P	P	N	Adequate
58. Ward and Shukla Mehta (2019)	H	H	H	H	A	A	P	N	N	P	P	P	Adequate
59. Williams et al. (2000)	H	H	H	H	A	A	P	N	N	N	P	P	Adequate
60. Williams et al. (2003)	H	H	H	H	A	A	P	N	N	N	P	N	Adequate
61. Wójcik et al. (2021)	H	H	A	H	A	H	P	N	N	P	P	P	Adequate

→ PART = participant characteristics; IV = independent variable; BSLN = baseline condition; DV = dependent variable; VIS ANAL = visual analysis; EXP CON = experimental control; IOA = interobserver agreement; KAP = kappa; BR = blind raters; FID = fidelity; G/M = generalisation or maintenance; SV = social validity; H = high; A = acceptable; U = unacceptable; P = positive; N = negative

Table 2. Summary of studies using CMOs in mand training.

Study citation	Participant characteristics	Dependent variable	Study design	Type of mand	MO manipulation procedure	Type of CMO: stimulus functioning as CMO	Effect size [Tau-U, significance (2-tailed p value), 90% confidence intervals]
1. Albert et al. (2012)	Victor (5 years, male, autism) Nathaniel (8 years, male, autism/seizure disorder) Carina (5 years, female, PDD/ASD)	Type of mand response (i.e., unprompted, prompted, no response)	Concurrent multiple baseline design across activities	Mand for an missing item	Withholding an item needed to complete an activity	CMO-T: the last step before being interrupted in a behaviour chain (e.g., the sight of open bag of bread)	Victor: Tau-U = .66, p < .001, 90% CI [0.36, 0.97] Nathaniel: Tau-U = .64, p < .001, 90% CI [0.37, 0.92] Carina: Tau-U = .72, p < .001, 90% CI [0.41, 1]
2. Alwell et al. (1989)	Devon (7 years, male, autism/severe cognitive delay)	Cumulative frequency of mand responses	Multiple baseline design across responses with multiple probes	Mand for an action (e.g., out, hug)	Interrupting ongoing sequence of events	CMO-T: the sight of a door/the presence of an adult	Devon: Tau-U = .51, p < .001, 90% CI [0.30, 0.74]
3. Betz et al. (2010)	Trevor (5 years, male, ASD) Travis (3.5 years, male, ASD) Rachel (4.5 years, female, ASD)	Percentage of independent mand responses	Multiple baseline design across participants	Mand for information using “Where + (item name)?”	Removing a toy from the table	CMO-T: access to a toy	Trevor: Tau-U = 1, p = .034, 90% CI [0.23, 1] Travis: Tau-U = .76, p = .005, 90% CI [0.31, 1] Rachel: Tau-U = .75, p = .004 90% CI [0.32, 1]
4. Bowen et al. (2012)	Aubrey (3 years, female, autism) Chase (11 years, male, autism)	Cumulative frequency of correct independent mands	Adapted alternating treatments design	Mand for an item	Holding a preferred edible item up	CMO-T: the sight of a preferred edible item	Aubrey: Tau-U = .44, p = .071, 90% CI [0.04, 0.84] Chase: Tau-U = .75, p = .001, 90% CI [0.39, 1]
5. Carnett et al. (2019)	Ryan (10 years, male, ASD) Franny (13 years, female, ASD/Down syndrome) Seth (5 years, male, ASD)	Type of mand response (i.e., independent, gesture, verbal, partial, full prompt)	Concurrent probe multiple baseline design across participants	Mand for an action	Locking a screen and blocking access to a video game or a music video	CMO-T: the sight of a locked screen	Ryan: Tau-U = .75, p < .001, 90% CI [0.43, 1] Franny: Tau-U = .53, p = .004, 90% CI [0.23, 0.84] Seth: Tau-U = .47, p = .007, 90% CI [0.18, 0.76]
6. Carnett and Ingvarsson (2016)	Ryan (11 years, male, autism)	Frequency of the participant said “I do not know, please tell me”. or gave the correct answer to the question	Multiple baseline design across stimulus sets	Mand for information	Presenting an unknown question	CMO-T: an unknown question	Ryan: Tau-U = .88, p < .001, 90% CI [0.56, 1]
7. Carnett et al. (2020)	Ryan (10 years, male, ASD) Franny (13 years, female, ASD/Down syndrome) Seth (5 years, male, ASD)	Type of mand response (i.e., independent, gesture, verbal, partial, full prompt)	1. concurrent multiple baseline design across participants 2. concurrent probe/multiple baseline design across behaviour chains embedded in a multiplebaseline across participants	Mand for information using “Where [item name]?”	1. withholding an item needed for an activity 2. presenting a vocal statement (“I don’t know”.)	1. CMO-T: the last step before being interrupted in a behaviour chain (e.g., the sight of a board game) 2. CMO-T: the presence of the first communication partner	Ryan: Tau-U = .72, p = .045, 90% CI [0.13, 1] Franny: Tau-U = .29, p = .083, 90% CI [0.01, 0.56] Seth: Tau-U = .40, p < .001, 90% CI [0.21, 0.60]
8. Choi et al. (2010)	Dan (7 years, male, autism/severe developmental disabilities) Rob (8 years, male, autism/severe developmental disabilities/seizure) Jay (6.5 years, male, autism/developmental disabilities)	Percentage of correct requesting, rejecting, and re-requesting responses	Multiple probe design across participants	Mand for the removal of a wrong item using “No.”	Offering a wrong item when a missing item is requested	CMO-T: the sight of the necessary items for an activity, except a missing item	Dan: Tau-U = .80, p = .043, 90% CI [0.15, 1] Rob: Tau-U = .82, p = .019, 90% CI [0.25, 1] Jay: Tau-U = .59, p = .032, 90% CI [0.14, 1]
9. Drash et al. (1999)	Subject 1 (2.67 years, male, autism) Subject 2 (2.5 years, male, autism) Subject 3 (3.5 years, male, pervasive developmental disorder with autistic symptoms)	1. percentage of mands 2. percentage of correct echoic response 3. percentage of error responses 4. percentage of no responses/inappropriate behaviour 5. percentage of tact responses	B design	Mand for an item	Presenting a preferred toy or food stimulus out of reach	CMO-T: the sight of an item	Not applicable (no formal baseline sessions were conducted)
10. Duker et al. (1994)	Rene (14 years, male, autistic)	Frequency of spontaneous mands	Reversal design	Mand for an item or an activity	Providing one quarter/halves of the item needed for an activity (e.g., puzzles) or withholding an ongoing activity (e.g., music)	CMO-T: the sight of an insufficient amount of item needed for an activity/a brief access to an activity	Rene Tau-U = .18, p = .497, 90% CI [−0.25, 0.61]
11. Endicott and Higbee (2007)	Stewart (4 years, male, ASD) Braden (4 years, male, ASD) Gavin (3 years, male, ASD) Dillon (5 years, male, ASD)	1. percentage of correct mands using ‘‘Where?’’ 2. percentage of correct mands using ‘‘Who?”	Multiple baseline across participants	1. mand for information regarding location of the item 2. mand for information regarding which adult has the item	1. hiding the item in a box, on a shelf, or in the participant’s backpack 2. when the participant asked ‘‘Where (item)?’’, presenting a vocal statement	1. CMO-T: access to a preferred item 2. CMO-T: a vocal statement, “I gave it to somebody.”	Stewart: Tau-U = .92, p = .003, 90% CI [0.42, 1] Braden: Tau-U = .88, p < .001, 90% CI [0.54, 1] Gavin: Tau-U = .86, p = .011, 90% CI [0.30, 1] Dillon: Tau-U = 1, p = .011, 90% CI [0.36, 1]
12. Gordon and Shillingsburg (2019)	Adam (17 years, male, autism) Patrick (13 years, male, autism)	1. percentage of correct mands for information 2. percentage of correct intraverbal responses	Concurrent multiple baseline across participants	Mand for information	Presenting a question about a social partner that is not known nor observable	CMO-T: an unknown question(e.g., “What is Mary’s favorite holiday?”)	Adam: Tau-U = .80, p = .033, 90% CI [0.18, 1] Patrick: Tau-U = .75, p = .029, 90% CI [0.19, 1]
13. Hartman and Klatt (2005)	Sean (2.5 years, male, autism) Billy (2.5 years, male, autism)	Cumulative frequency of correct independent mands	A-B design	Mand for an item	1. restricting access to toys for more than 23hrs 2. restrictingaccess to toys for more than 23hrs/hiding a toy under the table	1. CMO-T: the sight of a toy 2. CMO-T: the sight of a toy	Not applicable (baseline data is not graphically displayed)
14. Howlett et al. (2011)	Nick (3.67 years, male, autism/expressive language delay)	Percentage of correct mands	Multiple probe design across participants	Mand for information using “Where’s [object]?”	Hiding a toy from view	CMO-T: the sight of an empty toy container	Nick: Tau-U = .83, p = .015, 90% CI [0.27, 1]
15. Ingvarsson and Hollobaugh (2010)	Chris (10 years, male, autism) Neil (7 years, male, autism) Matt (6 years, male, autism) Jim (4 years, male, autism)	Frequency of the correct answer to the question or the participants said “I do not know, please tell me.”	Multiple baseline across stimulus sets, embeded in multiple baseline across participants	Mand for information using “I do not know, please tell me.”	Presenting a question answered incorrectly (personal information, general knowledge, academic skills)	CMO-T: an unknown question	Chris: Tau-U = .95, p = .009, 90% CI [0.35, 1] Neil: Tau-U = 1, p < .001, 90% CI [0.57, 1] Matt: Tau-U = .90, p < .001, 90% CI [0.52, 1] Jim: Tau-U = .97, p < .001, 90% CI [0.57, 1]
16. Jessel and Ingvarsson (2021)	Pat (7 years, male, ASD) Sam (3 years, male, ASD)	Cumulative frequency of mands	Phase1: Nonconcurrent multiple baseline design across participants Phase 3: Concurrent multiple baseline design across items	Phase 1: mand for information using “Where is the [item]? (known item) Phase 3: mand for information using “What am I missing?” (unknown item)	Withholding an item needed for a task	CMO-T: the last step before being interrupted in a behaviour chain (e.g., the sight of an item matched)	Pat: Tau-U = .72, p < .001, 90% CI [0.41, 1] Sam: Tau-U = .86, p < .001, 90% CI [0.64, 1]
17. Kahlow et al. (2019)	Boris (7.08 years, male, ASD) Earl (17.33 years, male, ASD) Kitty (8.92 years, female, ASD)	1. percentage of trials with the mand “When?” 2. percentage of trials with the mand “Where?”	Nonconcurrent multiple baseline design across participants	1. mand for information using “When?” 2. mand for information using “Where?”	1. presenting an unavailability statement (“Not right now.”) 2. hiding an item	1. CMO-T: the sight of a preferred item 2. CMO-T: the sight of an empty drawer	Boris: Tau-U = .75, p = .066, 90% CI [0.08, 1] Earl: Tau-U = .88, p = .001, 90% CI [0.44, 1] Kitty: Tau-U = .75, p = .002, 90% CI [0.35, 1] *only “When” trials were evaluated due to “Where?” was previously acquired
18. Koegel et al. (1998)	Child1 (3.92 years, male, autism) Child2 (5.42 years, male, autism) Child3 (3.75 years, female, autism)	1. frequency of spontaneous targeted mands 2. number of stimulus items the child labeled correctly	Multiple baseline design across children	Mand for information using “What’s that?”	Hiding a preferred item in an opaque bag	CMO-T: the sight of an opaque bag	Child1: Tau-U = 1, p = .014, 90% CI [0.33, 1] Child2: Tau-U = 1, p = .002, 90% CI [0.48, 1] Child3: Tau-U = 1, p < .001, 90% CI [0.57, 1]
19. Koegel et al. (2010)	Child1 (3.33 years, male, autism) Child2 (4.67 years, male, autism) Child3 (3.17 years, male, autism)	1. frequency of unprompted mands using ‘‘Where?’’ 2. frequency of prepositions/ ordinal markers the child correctly produced	Multiple baseline design across children	Mand for information using “Where?”	Hiding a preferred item	CMO-T: access to a preferred item	Child1: Tau-U = 1, p < .001, 90% CI [0.51, 1] Child2: Tau-U = 1, p < .001, 90% CI [0.54, 1] Child3: Tau-U = 1, p < .001, 90% CI [0.60, 1]
20. Landa et al. (2020)	Neal (7 years, male, ASD) Kiley (5 years, female, ASD) Rachel (5 years, female, ASD) Cage (7 years, male, ASD)	Percentage of trials with correct mands	Adapted alternating treatments design (treatment) Multiple probe design–(generalisation) Nonconcurrent multiple baseline design (replication)	Mand for social information (e.g., “What kind of ice cream do you like?”)	Presenting a social question for which the answer could not be observed	CMO-T: a social question (e.g., “What kind of ice cream does Sarah like?”)	Neal: Tau-U = .53, p = .078, 90% CI [0.04, 1] Kiley: Tau-U = .28, p = .426, 90% CI [−0.30, 0.86] Rachel: Tau-U = .77, p = .006, 90% CI [0.31, 1] Cage: Tau-U = .42, p = .188, 90% CI [−0.10, 0.94]
21. Landa et al. (2017)	Haley (6 years, female, autism) Brian (7 years, male, autism) Daisy (6 years, female, autism)	Percentage of trials with mands for information during EO-present and EO-absent conditions	Alternating treatments design/multiple baseline design across participants	Mand for information using “When?” or “When can I have [item]?”	Presenting an unavailability statement (e.g., “Not right now.”)	CMO-T: the sight of a preferred item	Haley: Tau-U = .90, p = .023, 90% CI [0.25, 1] Brian: Tau-U = .67, p = .121, 90% CI [−0.04, 1] Daisy: Tau-U = .73, p = .008, 90% CI [0.28, 1]
22. Lechago et al. (2010)	John (4.5 years, male, autism) Matt (4.5 years, male, autism) Anthony (7 years, male, autism)	Cumulative frequency of correct mands	Nonconcurrent multiple baseline design across participants	Mand for information using “Where is [item]?” and “Who has [item]?”	Where trials: withholding an item needed to complete an activity Who trials: presenting a vocal statement	CMO-T (Where): the last step before being interrupted in a behaviour chain (e.g., the sight of an open bin) CMO-T (Who): a vocal statement, “One of your teachers has it.”	John: Tau-U = 1, p = .021, 90% CI [0.29, 1] Matt: Tau-U = 1, p = .011, 90% CI [0.36, 1] Anthony: Tau-U = 1, p = .002, 90% CI [0.47, 1]
23. Lechago et al. (2013)	Greg (7.58 years, male, autism) Raymond (7.58 years, male, autism) Jake (5.75 years, male, autism)	Cumulative frequency of correct mands and completion of behaviour chains	Concurrent multiple probe design across behaviour chains	Mand for information using “How do I?” and “How many?”	Presenting a preferred activity that cannot be completed independently	CMO-T: the sight of a preferred activity	Greg: Tau-U = .58, p = .002, 90% CI [0.28, 0.89] Raymond: Tau-U = .80, p = .003, 90% CI [0.36, 1] Jake: Tau-U = .73, p < .001, 90% CI [0.39, 1]
24. Lorah et al. (2014)	Jayson (4 years, male, ASD) Aaron (4 years, male, ASD) Sean (5 years, male, ASD)	1. percentage of independent mands 2. percentage of independent listener responses 3. trials to criterion for both speaker and listener responses	Multiple baseline design across participants	Mand for a missing item from the peer	Withholding 1–3 pieces needed to complete a puzzle	CMO-T: a completion of a puzzle with the exception of 1–3 pieces	Jayson: Tau-U = 1, p = .034, 90% CI [0.23, 1] Aaron: Tau-U = 1, p = .034, 90% CI [0.23, 1] Sean: Tau-U = 1, p = .011, 90% CI [0.36, 1]
25. Lorah et al. (2019)	Sally (3.9 years, female, autism) Nate (3.6 years, male, autism) Linda (4.2 years, female, autism)	Percentage of independent and prompted mands	Multiple baseline across participants	Mand for a missing item from the peer	Withholding the final piece needed to complete a puzzle	CMO-T: a completion of a puzzle with the exception of the final piece	Sally: Tau-U = 1, p = .034, 90% CI [0.23, 1] Nate: Tau-U = 1, p = .009, 90% CI [0.37, 1] Linda: Tau-U = .92, p = .008, 90% CI [0.35, 1]
26. Lorah et al. (2020)	Walter (3.25 years, male, ASD) Jane (4.33 years, female, ASD) Jax (4.5 years, male, ASD)	Percentage of independent mands	Multiple baseline across participants	Mand for a missing item from the peer	Withholding an item needed for arts and crafts	CMO-T: the sight of an art activity	Walter: Tau-U = .50, p = .205, 90% CI [−0.15, 1] Jane: Tau-U = .58, p = .011, 90% CI [0.20, 0.95] Jax: Tau-U = 1, p = .002, 90% CI [0.48, 1]
27. Marion et al. (2011)	Zach (4 years, male, ASD) Kevin (5.58 years, male, ASD) Luke (8.42 years, male, autism)	Percentage of correct mands	Modified multiple baseline design across four CMEOs	Mand for information using “What is it?”	1. hiding an item 2. withholding an item needed to complete an activity 3. providing an insufficient amount of item 4. hiding an item behind back, peeking around a door, “Oooh”	1. CMO-T: the sight of an item 2. CMO-T: the completion of an activity with the exception of a missing item 3. CMO-T: the presence of items needed to begin an activity *mand training was conducted in 1, 2, 3	Zach: Tau-U = .25, p = .497, 90% CI [−0.36, 0.86] Kevin: Tau-U = .76, p = .068, 90% CI [0.08, 1] Luke: Tau-U = .71, p = .032, 90% CI [0.17, 1]
28. Marion, Martin, Yu, Buhler, and Kerr (2012)	Zack (5 years, male, ASD) Chris (3.83 years, male, PDD-NOS) Connor (5 years, male, ASD)	Percentage of correct mands	Modified multiple baseline design across participants	Mand for information using “Where?”	1. hiding a preferred toy 2. withholding an item needed to complete an activity 3. providing an insufficient amount of item 4. giving a locked box or moving an item from a box to another container	CMO-T: the sight of a preferred toy *mand training was conducted in 1	Zack: Tau-U = .64, p = .298, 90% CI [−0.37, 1] Chris: Tau-U = 1, p = .064, 90% CI [0.11, 1] Connor: Tau-U = .63, p = .192, 90% CI [−0.16, 1]
29. Marion, Martin, Yu, Buhler, Kerr, et al. (2012)	Zack (male, ASD) Connor (male, ASD) Kevin (male, ASD) *all participants ranged in age from 5 to 6 years	Percentage of correct mands	Modified multiple baseline design across participants	Mand for information using “Which?”	Where trials: 1. hiding a toy in one of the container 2. withholding an item needed to complete an activity 3. providing an insufficient amount of item 4. giving a locked box Which trials: after the participant manded ‘‘Where?’’ providing a general description	CMO-T: a vocal statement (e.g., ”In the box”.) *mand training was conducted using Where trial 1	Zack: Tau-U = .40, p = .558, 90% CI [−0.72, 1] Connor: Tau-U = .45, p = .324, 90% CI [−0.30, 1] Kevin: Tau-U = 1, p = .083, 90% CI [0.05, 1]
30. Ostryn and Wolfe (2011a)	Rex (4 years, male, PDD-NOS) Carrie (3 years, female, ASD) Amy (4 years, female, autism)	Percentage of unprompted pictorial communication (later changed to full spoken response)	Multiple baseline design across three participants	Mand for information using “What’s that?”	Hiding a toy in a bag or a box	CMO-T: the sight of an item that could not be identified (hidden in a bag or a box)	Rex: Tau-U = 1, p = .014, 90% CI [0.33, 1] Carrie: Tau-U = 1, p = .006, 90% CI [0.40, 1] Amy: Tau-U = .83, p = .023, 90% CI [0.23, 1]
31. Ostryn and Wolfe (2011b)	Rita (4.92 years, female, ASD) Joann (4.17 years, female, ASD) Henry (4.17 years, male, ASD)	1. percentage of correct independent utterance of “What’s that?” 2. percentage of correct independent utterance of “Where is it?”	Multiple baseline design across participants	Mand for information using “What’s that?”/”Where is it?”	1. hiding a toy in a bag 2. hiding a toy in a container	1. CMO-T: the sight of an item that could not be identified (hidden in a bag) 2. CMO-T: the sight of an empty container	Rita: Tau-U = 1, p = .027, 90% CI [0.26, 1] Joann: Tau-U = 1, p = .019, 90% CI [0.30, 1] Henry: Tau-U = .77, p = .007, 90% CI [0.31, 1]
32. Patil et al. (2021)	Gianna (9.92 years, female, ASD) Brandon (18.33 years, male, ASD) Ken (8.08 years, male, ASD)	Percentage of independent correct responses	Concurrent multiple-baseline design across three scenario types	Mand for information using “Why?”	Presenting an unavailability statement (e.g., “You can’t have it.”)/showing a video of someone engaging in an emotional response/ walking with the participant to a different room, hallway, or outside	CMO-T: the sight of a preferred item/the observation of an emotional response/the sight of a different room, hallway, or outside	Gianna: Tau-U = 1, p < .001, 90% CI [0.63, 1] Brandon: Tau-U = .91, p < .001, 90% CI [0.52, 1] Ken: Tau-U = .93, p < .001, 90% CI [0.55, 1]
33. Pellecchia and Hineline (2007)	Rachel (4 years, female, autism) Bobby (5 years, male, autism) Nate (4 years, male, autism)	Percentages of unprompted mands	Multiple baseline across participants	Mand for an item	Placing a preferred item out of reach/ blocking access to an item	CMO-T: the sight of a preferred item	Rachel: Tau-U = .76, p = .037, 90% CI [0.16, 1] Bobby: Tau-U = 1, p = .009, 90% CI [0.37, 1] Nate: Tau-U = 1, p = .013, 90% CI [0.34, 1]
34. Pistoljevic and Dzanko (2017)	A (5.38 years, male, ASD) B (5.66 years, male, ASD) C (5 years, male, ASD)	1. frequency of vocal verbal operants emitted during the non-instructional settings 2. frequency of target mands	Non-concurrent multiple baseline across subjects design	Mand for item/action (e.g., “Give me _____ please.”, “Open____ please.”)	15 EO (e.g., withholding an item needed to complete an activity/ blocking access to an item/activity)	CMO-T: the sight of a desired item or activity	A: Tau-U = 1, p = .317, 90% CI [−0.65, 1] B: Tau-U = 1, p = .221, 90% CI [−0.34, 1] C: Tau-U = 1, p = .180, 90% CI [−0.23, 1]
35. Plavnick and Vitale (2016)	Trish (2.92 years, female, autistic) Paula (2.92 years, female, autistic) Corey (3.42 years, male, autistic) Marcus (3.5 years, male, ASD)	Cumulative frequency of acquired and mastered mands	Adapted alternating treatment design	Mand for an item	Placing a preferred item on a high shelf/withholding one part of an activity that required two parts	CMO-T: the sight of a preferred item/the presence of one part of an activity	Trish: Tau-U = .34, p = .108, 90% CI [−0.01, 0.69] Paula: Tau-U =.32, p = .102, 90% CI [0.00, 0.65] Corey: Tau-U = .38, p = .109, 90% CI [−0.01, 0.76] Marcus: Tau-U = .54, p = .009, 90% CI [0.20, 0.88]
36. Pyles et al. (2021)	Ivan (5 years, male, ASD) Tony (6 years, male, ASD)	1. percentage of correct responses asking “why” questions 2. asking follow-up questions, retrieving missing items, and behaviour excesses	Multiple baseline across participants	Mand for information using “Why?”	Presenting an unavailability statement (“I can’t give it to you.”)	CMO-T: the sight of a preferred item	Ivan: Tau-U = .60, p = .051, 90% CI [0.09, 1] Tony: Tau-U = .67, p = .121, 90% CI [−0.04, 1]
37. Roberts-Pennell and Sigafoos (1999)	Adam (3 years, male, autism/intellectual disability)	Percentage of correct mands for “More.”	Multiple baseline across subjects	Mand for an activity using “More.”	Interrupting an ongoing play (e.g., turning off the keyboard)	CMO-T: the presence of an item	Adam: Tau-U = .50, p = .015, 90% CI [0.16, 0.84]
38. Rodriguez et al. (2017)	Wilson (8 years, male, PDD-NOS) Cooper (4 years, male, autistic disorder) Sylvie (6 years, female, autistic disorder)	Percentage of trials with correct responses during incapable trials (Try + “Help.”) and capable trials (Try + No “Help.”)	Concurrent multiple probe design across sets for all participants except Wilson (nonconcurrent multiple baseline design across sets)	Mand for help	Providing a task a child cannot complete independently/providing less items needed for an activity/ placing an item out of reach	CMO-T: an incapable task/the presence of items for an activity/the sight of an item	Wilson: Tau-U = .50, p = .027, 90% CI [0.13, 0.87] Cooper: Tau-U = .77, p < .001, 90% CI [0.47, 1] Sylvie: Tau-U = .61, p < .001, 90% CI [0.32, 0.89]
39. Roy-Wsiaki et al. (2010)	Child (5 years, male, autism)	Percentage of correct independent mand responses	Modified multiple baseline design across settings	Mand for information using “What?”	1. hiding an item 2. withholding an item needed to complete an activity 3. providing an insufficient amount of item 4. hiding an item	1. CMO-T: the sight of an item 2. CMO-T: a completion of an activity with the exception of the missing item 3. CMO-T: the presence of items needed to begin an activity *mand training was conducted in 1, 2, 3	Child: Tau-U = .46, p = .161, 90% CI [−0.08, 1]
40. Shih et al. (2021)	Wang (10 years, male, ASD) Lin (12 years, male, ASD) Chen (9 years, male, ASD)	Frequency of spontaneous requests	Multiple-probe baseline design across participants	Mand for help	1. terminating a mouse cursor operation 2. terminating avideo	1. CMO-T: access to a computer game 2. CMO-T: the sight of a cartoon video	Wang: Tau-U = .97, p < .001, 90% CI [0.45, 1] Lin: Tau-U = 1, p < .001, 90% CI [0.58, 1] Chen: Tau-U = 1, p < .001, 90% CI [0.64, 1]
41. Shillingsburg, Bowen, and Valentino (2014)	Josh (7 years, male, autism) Doug (3 years, male, autism)	Cumulative frequency of independent mands across EO-present and EO-absent conditions	Alternating treatment design/nonconcurrent multiple-baseline design across participants	Mand for information using “How?” /“How do I do it?”	Providing a preferred activity that cannot be completed independently	CMO-T: an unknown task	Josh: Tau-U = .36, p = .300, 90% CI [−0.21, 0.93] Doug: Tau-U = .20, p = .178, 90% CI [−0.05, 0.45]
42. Shillingsburg, Bowen, Valantino, et al. (2014)	Ian (12.33 years, male, autism) Jeb (8 years, male, autism) Jen (6.08 years, male, partial fetal alcohol syndrome/PDD-NOS)	Cumulative frequency of correct independent mands for information during EO and AO conditions	Adapted alternating treatments design/nonconcurrent multiple baseline design across participants	Mands for information using “Which?” and “Who?”	Which: presenting a vocal statement Who: presenting a vocal statement	CMO-T (Which): a vocal statement (e.g., “You can have a Skittle. It’s under one of these cups.”) CMO-T (Who): a vocal statement (e.g., “One of your therapists has your chip.”)	Ian: Tau-U = .66, p = .011, 90% CI [0.23, 1] Jeb: Tau-U = .77, p = .003, 90% CI [0.35, 1] Jen: Tau-U = .79, p < .001, 90% CI [0.47, 1]
43. Shillingsburg et al. (2018)	Cooper (6 years, male, ASD) Gerald (6 years, male, ASD)	Cumulative frequency of social questions and correct intraverbals across conditions	Adapted alternating treatment design	Mand for social information (e.g., “What do you like to eat?”)	Asking a question about others	CMO-T: a question about others (e.g., “What does Sarah like to eat?”)	Cooper: Tau-U = .35, p = .311, 90% CI [−0.22, 0.91] Gerald: Tau-U = .44, p = .097, 90% CI [0.00, 0.89]
44. Shillingsburg et al. (2016)	Sarah (6.08 years, female, autism) Zack (6 years, male, autism) Danny (3.58 years, male, autism) Brian (6.17 years, male, autism)	Phase1: cumulative frequency of “Who?” responses during EO and AO conditions Phase2: cumulative frequency of correct independent re-statements of the initial mand for the item	Phase1: adapted alternating treatments design embedded within a nonconcurrent multiple baseline design across the participants Phase2: multiple baseline design across the participants	Mand for information using “Who?”/ “Who has it?”/“Who has (the name of the item)?”	Presenting a vocal statement	CMO-T: a vocal statement (e.g., “Someone in the room has your toy.”)	Sarah: Tau-U = .67, p = .004, 90% CI [0.29, 1] Zack: Tau-U = .53, p = .034, 90% CI [0.12, 0.93] Danny: Tau-U = .72, p=.007, 90% CI [0.28, 1] Brian: Tau-U = .57, p = .116, 90% CI [−0.03, 1]
45. Shillingsburg et al. (2019)	Justin (6 years, male, ASD) Emma (7 years, female, ASD) Bruce (3 years, male, ASD)	Cumulative frequency of mands	Nonconcurrent multiple baseline across participants	Mand for information using “Which cup?” or “Who has it?”	Which: presenting a vocal statement Who: presenting a vocal statement	CMO-T (Which): a vocal statement (e.g., “It’s under one of the cups.”) CMO-T (Who): a vocal statement (e.g., “One of your teachers has it.”)	Justin: Tau-U = .83, p < .001, 90% CI [0.49, 1] Emma: Tau-U = .60, p = .027, 90% CI [0.16, 1] Bruce: Tau-U = .86, p < .001, 90% CI [0.45, 1]
46. Shillingsburg et al. (2013)	Tommy (4 years, male, autism) Josh (3 years, male, autism) Abby (4 years, female, autism) Jenny (5 years, female, PDD-NOS/partial fetal alcohol syndrome) Julian (8 years, male, autism)	Cumulative frequency of correct independent mands	Adapted alternating treatments design/nonconcurrent multiple baseline design across participants	Mand for the removal of an obstruction (i.e., “Move please.” or “Excuse me.”)	Placing an object to obstruct a child’s view	CMO-T: the sight of the TV or a computer screen	Tommy: Tau-U = .50, p = .163, 90% CI [−0.09, 1] Josh: Tau-U = .90, p = .023, 90% CI [0.25, 1] Abby: Tau-U = .60, p = .015, 90% CI [0.19, 1] Jenny: Tau-U = .70, p = .001, 90% CI [0.35, 1] Julian: Tau-U = .79, p < .001, 90% CI [0.43, 1]
47. Shillingsburg and Valentino (2011)	Samuel (7.67 years, male, autism)	Cumulative frequency of independent mands	Multiple baseline design across ‘‘How’’ scenarios	Mand for information using “How?” ”How do I do it?”	Interrupting an ongoing activity or response	CMO-T: the sight of an item or an activity	Samuel: Tau-U = .44, p = .204, 90% CI [−0.13, 1]
48. Shillingsburg et al. (2011)	John (7.75 years, male, cerebral palsy/autism) Cameron (11.92 years, male, autism)	Percentage of the appropriate form of the mand	Multiple probe across ‘‘Wh’’ questions design	Mand for information using using “Who” “Which?” “When?” “Where?”	Who/Which: presenting a vocal statement When: presenting an unavailability statement Where: hiding an item from view	CMO-T (Who/Which): a vocal statement (e.g., ”Someone took your mouse”./“One of my hands has a surprise for you”.) CMO-T (When): an availability statement (“We are going to play trains, but not right now”.) CMO-T (Where): the sight of a box without a snack	John: Tau-U = .79, p < .001, 90% CI [0.55, 1] Cameron: Tau-U = .78, p < .001, 90% CI [0.58, 0.99]
49. Sidener et al. (2010)	Ezra (4 years, male, autism)	Number of sessions to criterion	Adapted alternating treatments design	Mand for an item	Hiding a toy in an opaque bag	CMO-T: the sight of an item in an opaque bag	Not applicable (baseline data is not graphically displayed)
50. Sigafoos et al. (2013)	Sean (5 years, male, autism) Marco (4 years, male, autism)	Cumulative frequency of each response (i.e., reaching, hitting, and correct iPad-based requesting)	Multiple baseline across participants design	Mand for continuation of an activity	Interrupting an ongoing play	CMO-T: access to a toy	Sean: Tau-U = .88, p < .001, 90% CI [0.51, 1] Marco: Tau-U = .71, p < .001, 90% CI [0.39, 1]
51. Sigafoos and Littlewood (1999)	Kurt (4.67 years, male, autism)	Percentage of correct mand response	A-B design	Mand for continuation of an activity	Interrupting an ongoing play or behaviour	CMO-T: access to a playground equipment	Kurt: Tau-U = .38, p = .313, 90% CI [−0.24, 1]
52. Somers et al. (2014)	Vernon (male, autism) Rob (male, autism) *8 and 9 years	Percentage of correct mand response during Item Present trials, I Want trials, and Where trials	Concurrent multiple baseline across participants	Mand for information using “Where’s (item)?”	Where trials: hiding a toy	CMO-T (Where): the sight of an empty container *mand for an item is previously mastered	Vernon: Tau-U = .22, p = .480, 90% CI [−0.30, 0.74] Rob: Tau-U = .20, p = .439, 90% CI [−0.23, 0.63]
53. Sundberg et al. (2002)	Kevin (5 years, male, autism) Billy (6 years, male, autism) Joey (8 years, male, autism)	Experiment 1: percentage of correct mands Experiment 2: correct and incorrect mands	Multiple baseline across settings/a multielement design	1. Mand for information using “Where?” 2. Mand for information using “Where?” “Who?”	1. hiding an item in one of the other two containers 2. presenting a vocal statement	1. CMO-T: the sight of an empty container 2. CMO-T: a vocal statement, “I gave it to a teacher”.	Kevin: Tau-U = .72, p = .008, 90% CI [0.27, 1] Billy: Tau-U = .58, p = .032, 90% CI [0.14, 1] Joey: Tau-U = 1, p = .009, 90% CI [0.37, 1]
54. Sweeney-Kerwin et al. (2007)	Martin (3 years, male, autism) Jeff (7 years, male, autism)	Frequency of MO-controlled mands	Multiple baseline design across behaviors	Mand for an item	Hiding a preferred edible item from sight	CMO-T: access to a small amount of an item	Martin: Tau-U = .71, p < .001, 90% CI [0.55, 0.87] Jeff: Tau-U = .59, p < .001, 90% CI [0.35, 0.84]
55. Szmacinski et al. (2018)	Bobby (8 years, male, ASD) Carl (7 years, male, ASD)	Cumulative frequency of correct mands	Multiple probe design across stimuli	Mand for an item	Providing a broken item	CMO-T: the sight of a broken item (e.g., a marble is flattened, a straw is split)	Bobby: Tau-U = .11, p = .601, 90% CI [−0.23, 0.45] Carl: Tau-U = .11, p = .534, 90% CI [−0.18, 0.40]
56. Tada and Kato (2005)	Taro (4.83 years, male, ASD/ intellectual disability)	Percentage of on-task behaviour/percentage of occurrences of mand topographies	Multiple baseline design across activities	Mand for an item	Withholding an item needed for an activity	CMO-T: the sight of a pen case	Not applicable (no baseline data)
57. Valentino et al. (2019)	Kipp (6.08 years, male, autism) Dexter (6 years, male, autism) Neil (5.67 years, male, autism)	Percentage of manding for information using “Why?” during EO-present trials and not asking a question that included “Why?” during EO-absent trials	Multielement design/nonconcurrent multiple baseline design across participants	Mand for information using “Why?”	Putting an object on an experimenter’s body/Doing a wheelbarrow across the floor or other activity	CMO-T: the sight of an object placed in an odd location/the sight of the experimenter’s peculiar behaviour	Kipp: Tau-U = 1, p = .029, 90% CI [0.25, 1] Dexter: Tau-U = .92, p < .001, 90% CI [0.50, 1] Neil: Tau-U = 1, p < .001, 90% CI [0.55, 1]
58. Ward and Shukla Mehta (2019)	Praveen (7 years, male, ASD) Angel (6 years, male, ASD) Daneesha (5 years, female, ASD) Vanessa (5 years, female, ASD)	Frequency of occurrence of a motivating operation controlled mand and multiply controlled mand	Concurrent multiple baseline design across participants	Mand for an item	Hiding a preferred item from sight	CMO-T: access to a preferred item	Praveen: Tau-U = .86, p = .002, 90% CI [0.40, 1] Angel: Tau-U = .90, p < .001, 90% CI [0.59, 1] Daneesha: Tau-U = .57, p < .001, 90% CI [0.32, 0.83] Vanessa: Tau-U = .71, p < .001, 90% CI [0.43, 1]
59. Williams et al. (2000)	Ana (4 years, female, autism) Betty (4 years, female, autism)	Frequency of mands	Multiple baseline design across the three response forms	Mand for information using 1. “What’s that?” 2. “Can I see it?” 3. “Can I have it?”	1. presenting a comment about an object in a box 2. restricting access to the box 3. restricting access to an object in the box	1. CMO-T: a comment about an object in a box 2. CMO-T: the sight of the box with an object inside 3. CMO-T: the sight of an object in the box	Ana: Tau-U = .69, p < .001, 90% CI [0.39, 1] Betty: Tau-U = .55, p = .002, 90% CI [0.26, 0.84]
60. Williams et al. (2003)	Jim (2.75 years, male, autism) Erik (4.42 years, male, autism) Dario (9.33 years, male, autism)	Frequency of mands	Multiple baseline design across the three response forms	Mand for information using 1. “What’s in the box?” or”What’s that?” 2. “Can I see it?” 3. “Can I have it?”	1. presenting a comment about the object 2. restricting access to the box 3. restricting access to an object in the box	1. CMO-T: a comment about an object in a box 2. CMO-T: the sight of the box with an object inside 3. CMO-T: the sight of an object in the box	Jim: Tau-U = 1, p < .001, 90% CI [0.69, 1] Erik: Tau-U = .91, p < .001, 90% CI [0.61, 1] Dario: Tau-U = 1, p < .001, 90% CI [0.77, 1]
61. Wójcik et al. (2021)	Participant 1 (6.25 years, male, ASD) Participant 2 (6 years, male, ASD) Participant 3 (4.25 years, male, ASD)	Percentage of correct responses	Nonconcurrent multiple‐baseline design across participants	Mand for a missing item	Withholding an item needed for a task	CMO-T: the sight of an activity schedule and materials	Participant 1: Tau-U = .26, p = .118, 90% CI [−0.01, 0.53] Participant 2: Tau-U = .29, p = .086, 90% CI [0.01, 0.58] Participant 3: Tau-U = .53, p < .001, 90% CI [0.31, 0.76]

Figure 2. Example of CMO-T role in mand training.

Adapted from Albert et al. (2012). S1 = the initial stimulus change; S2 = a second stimulus change; R1 = the initial response; R2 = a second response; CMO-T = transitive conditioned motivating operation

Figure 3. Representation of mand training conducted by Hartman and Klatt (2005).

Adapted from Hartman and Klatt (2005). S1 = the initial stimulus change; S2 = a second stimulus change; R1 = the initial response; R2 = a second response; CMO-T = transitive conditioned motivating operation

Table 3. MO manipulation procedures used in mand training.

MO manipulation procedure used in mand training	Number of studies	Percentage (number of studies/61)	Study number (see Table 1)
Hiding an item	19	31.1%	3, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 39, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 58
Presenting a vocal statement or an instruction	14	23.0%	7, 11, 17, 21, 22, 32, 36, 42, 44, 45, 48, 53, 59, 60
Withholding an item needed for an activity	13	21.3%	1, 7, 16, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 39, 56, 61
Presenting an unknown task or question	8	13.1%	23, 38, 41 (task) 6, 12, 15, 20, 43 (question)
Interrupting an ongoing activity	8	13.1%	2, 5, 10, 37, 40, 47, 50, 51
Placing an item out of reach or blocking access	8	13.1%	4, 9, 33, 34, 35, 38, 59, 60
Providing insufficient amount of item needed for an activity	4	6.6%	10, 27, 38, 39
Manipulating an item or behaviour	3	4.9%	32, 55, 57
Placing an item to obstruct the child’s view	1	1.6%	46
Offering a wrong item	1	1.6%	8
Withholding access to toys for more than 23hrs	1	1.6%	13

→ MO = motivating operation

Figure 4. Tau-U effect sizes for participants in mand training.

Each dot represents the effect size for one participant. Participant number 1 is the first participant of study 1 (i.e., Victor) shown in Table 2. Tau-U scores ranged from 0 to 1. Four studies (Jessel & Ingvarsson, 2021; Lechago et al., 2010, 2013; Pistoljevic & Dzanko, 2017) did not include graphical data during mand training, therefore a baseline was compared with a post-training phase.

Table 4. Number of participants and effect sizes for each MO manipulation procedure

MO manipulation procedure	Number of participants with weak effect size	Percenage of weak effect size	Number of participants with medium effect size	Percentage of medium effect size	Number of participants with strong effect size	Percentage of strong effect size	Mean (SD) effect size
Hiding an item from view	11	24%	20	43%	15	33%	0.78 (0.22)
Presenting a vocal statement or an instruction	8	20%	24	59%	9	22%	0.78 (0.17)
Withholding an item needed for an activity	14	41%	8	24%	12	26%	0.70 (0.27)
Presenting an unknown task or question	10	48%	8	38%	3	14%	0.65 (0.24)
Interrupting an ongoing activity	6	50%	3	25%	3	25%	0.68 (0.22)
Placing an item out of reach or blocking access	8	40%	5	25%	7	20%	0.73 (0.25)
Providing insufficient amount of item needed for an activity	5	63%	3	38%	0	0%	0.53 (0.21)
Manipulating an item or behaviour	2	25%	2	25%	4	50%	0.75 (0.37)
Placing an item to obstruct the child’s view	2	40%	3	60%	0	0%	0.70 (0.14)
Offering a wrong item	1	33%	2	67%	0	0%	0.74 (0.10)
All procedures	67	35%	78	41%	47	24%	0.72 (0.24)

→ MO = motivating operation; SD = standard deviation When more than one MO manipulation procedures was applied, participants were included for both categories

Albert, K. M., Carbone, V. J., Murray, D. D., Hagerty, M., & Sweeney-Kerwin, E. J. (2012). Increasing the mand repertoire of children with autism through the use of an interrupted chain procedure. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 5(2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03391825

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Alwell, M., Hunt, P., Goetz, L., & Sailor, W. (1989). Teaching generalized communicative behaviors within interrupted behavior chain contexts. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14(2), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079698901400201

 Google Scholar

Betz, A. M., Higbee, T. S., & Pollard, J. S. (2010). Promoting generalization of mands for information used by young children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4(3), 501–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2009.11.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bowen, C. N., Shillingsburg, M. A., & Carr, J. E. (2012). The effects of the question “What do you want?” on mand training outcomes of children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45(4), 833–838. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2012.45-833

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Carnett, A., Bravo, A., & Waddington, H. (2019). Teaching mands for actions to children with autism spectrum disorder using systematic instruction, behavior chain interruption, and a speech-generating device. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 65(2), 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2017.1412561

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Carnett, A., & Ingvarsson, E. T. (2016). Teaching a child with autism to mand for answers to questions using a speech-generating device. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 32(2), 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-016-0070-6

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Carnett, A., Ingvarsson, E. T., Bravo, A., & Sigafoos, J. (2020). Teaching children with autism spectrum disorder to ask “where” questions using a speech-generating device. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53(3), 1383–1403. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.663

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Choi, H., O’reilly, M., Sigafoos, J., & Lancioni, G. (2010). Teaching requesting and rejecting sequences to four children with developmental disabilities using augmentative and alternative communication. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31(2), 560–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2009.12.006

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Drash, P. W., High, R. L., & Tudor, R. M. (1999). Using mand training to establish an echoic repertoire in young children with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 16(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF033929

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Duker, P., Kraaykamp, M., & Visser, E. (1994). A stimulus control procedure to increase requesting with individuals who are severely/profoundly intellectually disabled. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 38(2), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.1994.tb00372.x

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Endicott, K., & Higbee, T. S. (2007). Contriving motivating operations to evoke mands for information in preschoolers with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1(3), 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2006.10.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gordon, K. R., & Shillingsburg, M. A. (2019). Teaching mands for social information to individuals with developmental disabilities. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 3(4), 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41252-019-00126-w

 Google Scholar

Hartman, E. C., & Klatt, K. P. (2005). The effects of deprivation, presession exposure, and preferences on teaching manding to children with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 21(1), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03393015

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Howlett, M. A., Sidener, T. M., Progar, P. R., & Sidener, D. W. (2011). Manipulation of motivating operations and use of a script-fading procedure to teach mands for location to children with language delays. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(4), 943–947. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-943

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ingvarsson, E. T., & Hollobaugh, T. (2010). Acquisition of intraverbal behavior: Teaching children with autism to mand for answers to questions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-1

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jessel, J., & Ingvarsson, E. T. (2021). Teaching two children with autism to mand for known and unknown items using contrived motivating operations. Behavioral Interventions, 37(1), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1777

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kahlow, T. A., Sidener, T. M., Kisamore, A. N., & Reeve, K. F. (2019). Teaching the mand “When?” to children with autism spectrum disorder. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 35(2), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-019-00115-z

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Koegel, L. K., Camarata, S. M., Valdez-Menchaca, M., & Koegel, R. L. (1998). Setting generalization of question-asking by children with autism. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 102(4), 346–357.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L., Green-Hopkins, I., & Barnes, C. C. (2010). Brief report: Question-asking and collateral language acquisition in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(4), 509–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-009-0896-z

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Landa, R. K., Frampton, S. E., & Shillingsburg, M. A. (2020). Teaching children with autism to mand for social information. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53(4), 2271–2286. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.733

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Landa, R. K., Hansen, B., & Shillingsburg, M. A. (2017). Teaching mands for information using ‘when’ to children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50(3), 538–551. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.387

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lechago, S. A., Carr, J. E., Grow, L. L., Love, J. R., & Almason, S. M. (2010). Mands for information generalize across establishing operations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(3), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-381

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lechago, S. A., Howell, A., Caccavale, M. N., & Peterson, C. W. (2013). Teaching “How?” mand-for-information frames to children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46(4), 781–791. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.71

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lorah, E. R., Gilroy, S. P., & Hineline, P. N. (2014). Acquisition of peer manding and listener responding in young children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8(2), 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2013.10.009

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lorah, E. R., Karnes, A., Miller, J., & Welch-Beardsley, J. (2019). Establishing peer manding in young children with autism using a speech-generating device. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 31(6), 791–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-019-09679-z

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lorah, E. R., Miller, J., & Griffen, B. (2020). The acquisition of peer manding using a speech-generating device in naturalistic classroom routines. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 33(4), 619–631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-020-09762-w

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Marion, C., Martin, G. L., Yu, C. T., & Buhler, C. (2011). Teaching children with autism spectrum disorder to mand “What is it? Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(4), 1584–1597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2011.03.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Marion, C., Martin, G. L., Yu, C. T., Buhler, C., & Kerr, D. (2012). Teaching children with autism spectrum disorder to mand “Where? Journal of Behavioral Education, 21(4), 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-012-9148-y

 Google Scholar

Marion, C., Martin, G. L., Yu, C. T., Buhler, C., Kerr, D., & Claeys, A. (2012). Teaching children with autism spectrum disorder to mand for information using “Which? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45(4), 865–870. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2012.45-865

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ostryn, C., & Wolfe, P. S. (2011a). Teaching children with autism to ask “What’s that?” using a picture communication with vocal results. Infants and Young Children, 24(2), 174–192. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0b013e31820d95ff

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ostryn, C., & Wolfe, P. S. (2011b). Teaching preschool children with autism spectrum disorders to expressively discriminate between “What’s that?” and “Where is it? Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 26(4), 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357611421504

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Patil, P., Sidener, T. M., Pane, H., Reeve, S. A., & Nirgudkar, A. (2021). Teaching children with autism spectrum disorder to mand “Why?”. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 37(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-020-00138-x

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pellecchia, M., & Hineline, P. N. (2007). Generalization of mands in children with autism from adults to peers. The Behavior Analyst Today, 8(4), 483–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100634

 Google Scholar

Pistoljevic, N., & Dzanko, E. (2017). Effects of a modified speaker immersion procedure on the increase of spontaneous speech in children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 18(2), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2017.1404395

 Google Scholar

Plavnick, J. B., & Vitale, F. A. (2016). A comparison of vocal mand training strategies for children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(1), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300714548800

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pyles, M. L., Chastain, A. N., & Miguel, C. F. (2021). Teaching children with autism to mand for information using “why?” as a function of denied access. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 37(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-020-00141-2

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Roberts-Pennell, D., & Sigafoos, J. (1999). Teaching young children with developmental disabilities to request more play using the behaviour chain interruption strategy. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 12(2), 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.1999.tb00069.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rodriguez, N. M., Levesque, M. A., Cohrs, V. L., & Niemeier, J. J. (2017). Teaching children with autism to request help with difficult tasks. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50(4), 717–732. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.420

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Roy-Wsiaki, G., Marion, C., Martin, G. L., & Yu, C. T. (2010). Teaching a child with autism to request information by asking “What? Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 38(1–2), 55–74.

 Google Scholar

Shih, C. H., Chiang, M. S., & Lin, Z. J. (2021). Applying computer technology to teach children with autism spectrum disorder to initiate requests for assistance. International Journal of Disability Development and Education, 68(2), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2019.1678741

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shillingsburg, M. A., Bowen, C. N., & Valentino, A. L. (2014). Mands for information using “How” under EO-absent and EO-present conditions. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 30(1), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-013-0002-7

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Shillingsburg, M. A., Bowen, C. N., Valentino, A. L., & Pierce, L. E. (2014). Mands for information using “Who?” and “Which?” in the presence of establishing and abolishing operations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47(1), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.101

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shillingsburg, M. A., Frampton, S. E., Wymer, S. C., & Bartlett, B. (2018). A preliminary procedure for teaching children with autism to mand for social information. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 11(1), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-016-0163-7

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shillingsburg, M. A., Gayman, C. M., & Walton, W. (2016). Using textual prompts to teach mands for information using “Who? The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 32(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-016-0053-7

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Shillingsburg, M. A., Marya, V., Bartlett, B. L., & Thompson, T. M. (2019). Teaching mands for information using speech generating devices: A replication and extension. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52(3), 756–771. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.579

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shillingsburg, M. A., Powell, N. M., & Bowen, C. N. (2013). Teaching children with autism spectrum disorders to mand for the removal of stimuli that prevent access to preferred items. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 29(1), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393123

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Shillingsburg, M. A., & Valentino, A. L. (2011). Teaching a child with autism to mand for information using “How. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27(1), 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393100

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Shillingsburg, M. A., Valentino, A. L., Bowen, C. N., Bradley, D., & Zavatkay, D. (2011). Teaching children with autism to request information. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(1), 670–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2010.08.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sidener, T., Carr, J., Karsten, A., Severtson, J., Cornelius, C., & Heinicke, M. (2010). Evaluation of single and mixed verbal operant arrangements for teaching mands and tacts. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 26(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393079

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Sigafoos, J., Lancioni, G. E., O’reilly, M. F., Achmadi, D., Stevens, M., Roche, L., Kagohara, D. M., van der Meer, L., Sutherland, D., Lang, R., Marschik, P. B., McLay, L., Hodis, F., & Green, V. A. (2013). Teaching two boys with autism spectrum disorders to request the continuation of toy play using an iPad®-based speech-generating device. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7(8), 923–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2013.04.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sigafoos, J., & Littlewood, R. (1999). Communication intervention on the playground: A case study on teaching requesting to a young child with autism. International Journal of Disability Development and Education, 46(3), 421–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/103491299100579

 Google Scholar

Somers, A., Sidener, T. M., DeBar, R. M., & Sidener, D. W. (2014). Establishing concurrent mands for items and mands for information about location in children with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 30(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-014-0007-x

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Sundberg, M. L., Loeb, M., Hale, L., & Eigenheer, P. (2002). Contriving establishing operations to teach mands for information. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 18(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03392968

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Sweeney-Kerwin, E. J., Carbone, V. J., O’brien, L., Zecchin, G., & Janecky, M. N. (2007). Transferring control of the mand to the motivating operation in children with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 23(1), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393049

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Szmacinski, N. J., DeBar, R. M., Sidener, T. M., & Sidener, D. W. (2018). Fading an auditory model by volume to teach mands to children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 30(5), 653–668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-018-9610-4

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tada, M., & Kato, M. (2005). Acquisition of mands through a behavior chain interruption strategy: Task preference and occurrence of verbal requests by a child with autistic spectrum disorders. The Japanese Journal of Special Education, 42(6), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.6033/tokkyou.42.513

 Google Scholar

Valentino, A. L., Fu, S. B., & Padover, J. L. (2019). Teaching mands for information using “Why” to children with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 35(2), 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-019-00113-1

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ward, K. D., & Shukla Mehta, S. (2019). The use of a stimulus control transfer procedure to teach motivation-controlled mands to children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 34(4), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357619838273

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Williams, G., Donley, C. R., & Keller, J. W. (2000). Teaching children with autism to ask questions about hidden objects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33(4), 627–630. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2000.33-627

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Williams, G., Pérez-González, L. A., & Vogt, K. (2003). The role of specific consequences in the maintenance of three types of questions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36(3), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2003.36-285

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wójcik, M., Eikeseth, S., Eldevik, S., & Budzińska, A. (2021). Teaching children with autism to request items using audio scripts, interrupted chain procedure and sufficient exemplar training. Behavioral Interventions, 36(1), 40–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1761

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar