Using Prompting and Modeling to Teach Imitation Skills and Eye Contact to Syrian Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Figures & data

Figure 1. Eye contact prompting procedure.

Figure 2. Nonverbal imitation prompting Procedure.

Table 1. Social validity questionnaire.

	N	Min	Max	Mean	Std. Deviation
I felt that the program was socially acceptable	6	4	5	4.67	.52
The program produced socially important outcomes	6	4	5	4.67	.52
The program fit well the child program instructional style	6	3	5	4.17	.75
The intervention was effective	6	4	5	4.67	.52
I was satisfied with the results	6	4	5	4.67	.52
Total	6	4.2	5	4.57	.37

Figure 3. Percentage of eye contact by session.

Table 2. Eye contact descriptive statistics.

	Mean (range) PND
Participant	Baseline	Modeling + Prompting	Baseline	Modeling + Prompting
Hamza	1.7% (0–10%)	48% (50–90%) PND = 0	8.8% (10–20%)	77% (50–90%) PND = 0
Ali	2.9% (0–10%)	44% (30–50%) PND = 0	11.3% (10–20%)	67% (40–90%) PND = 0
Hala	1.1% (0–10%)	43% (40–50%) PND = 0	10% (0–20%)	74% (50–90%)
Mean	1.9%	45%	10%	72.7%

Figure 4. Percentage of correct imitative responses by session.

Table 3. Correct imitative responses descriptive statistics.

	Mean (range) PND
Participant	Baseline	Modeling + Prompting	Baseline	Modeling + Prompting
Hamza	7.1% (0–10%)	42% (30–50%) PND = 0	12.5% (10–20%)	73% (60–90%) PND = 0
Ali	3.3% (0–10%)	43% (30–50%) PND = 0	16.3% (10–20%)	68% (50–80%)
Hala	3% (0–10%)	44% (40–50%) PND = 0	10% (0–20%)	68% (40–80%),
Mean	4.5%	43%	12.9%	69.7%

Data Availability statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.