Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 5 (2011) 1471–1478
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders
Journal homepage: http://ees.elsevier.com/RASD/default.asp
A dyadic analysis of the effects of setting and communication partner
on elicited and spontaneous communication of children with Autism
Spectrum Disorder and typically developing children
Ita Forde, Jennifer Holloway *, Olive Healy, Julie Brosnan
School of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 8 February 2011
Received in revised form 9 February 2011
Accepted 9 February 2011
Available online 21 March 2011
The study examined the effects of condition and communication partner on spontaneous
and elicited communication in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in
comparison to age matched typically developing children. Eighteen children participated
in the study (nine children diagnosed with ASD and nine typically developing children).
Each participant was video recorded for 2 h 15 min periods across two conditions
(academic activity and free-time). The two conditions represented a naturalistic view of
the children’s environment. Spontaneous and elicited communication were further
analysed in terms of verbal behavior functions including requests, mands for information,
mands for attention, greetings, terminating an activity, comments/tacts, language of
negotiation, specifying using autoclitics and reject. Communication partner was further
analysed at two levels, peer and adult. There was no difference between the frequency of
functions of communication emitted and diagnosis of the participant. There was a
significant difference for communication partner, whereby the main communicative
partner for children with ASD was an adult in contrast to typically developing children
who spoke more to their peers. Typically developing children engaged in more
spontaneous communication than children diagnosed with ASD.
ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Elicited communication
Spontaneous communication
Autism Spectrum Disorder
Verbal behaviour
Individuals diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) face an amalgam of language related deficits in the areas of
and not exclusive to: expressive language, receptive vocabulary, comprehension of extensive directions, initiating
communication and engaging in reciprocal conversations. Children with diagnosis of ASD often use neologisms and
idiosyncratic language significantly more than both age-matched and language matched peers (Volden & Lord, 1991).
Communication problems can range from mutism, pronominal reversal, and unusual speech characteristics such as echolalia
to a lack of spontaneous language. Spontaneous language has become the focal point of communication training in children
with ASD. It represents a core, central and crucial deficit in the majority of these children.
Without intervention 21–66% of children with ASD do not develop communicative speech (Lord & McGee, 2001).
Between 14 and 20% of 9 years old with ASD are non-verbal and are considered to have deviant language systems (Rice,
Warren, & Betz, 2005). The exact nature of language impairments experienced by individuals with ASD remains unclear. In
addition, functional communication skills never fully develop for the majority of children with ASD or related disorders who
begin to speak (Carr & Durand, 1985). Children with ASD rarely initiate appropriate speech and tend to speak only when
spoken to (Carr & Kologinsky, 1983). Most children with ASD fail to engage in typical social interactions such as asking
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +353 91 495773; fax: +353 91 521355.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Holloway).
1750-9467/$ – see front matter ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2011.02.008
1472
I. Forde et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 5 (2011) 1471–1478
questions, requesting information (Charlop & Trasowech, 1991), expressing affection (Charlop & Walsh, 1986) or requesting
interactions (Matson, Sevin, Box, & Francis, 1993).
In contrast to the myriad of difficulties presented by children with ASD, typically developing children produce their first
50 words by the time they are 18 months (Shaffer, 2007). From 18 to 24 months, the naming explosion begins whereby the
average child produces up to 900 words within a six-month period, creating two word sentences and rapidly expanding their
understanding of language. By 36 months, typically developing children display excellent comprehension, increase their use
of plurals, past tense, specify using autoclitics and emit three word sentences (Shaffer, 2007). A typical 3-year-old child emits
20,000 words per day (Sundberg & Partington, 1998).
By 48 months, typically developing children have a vocabulary of 1000 words, produce ‘‘why’’ questions, co-ordinate
simple sentences and embed one sentence within another. At the age of 5, typically developing children utilize more
complex syntax and expand their vocabulary to over 14,000 words. A great number of children with ASD do not develop
functional language at all; in fact, every second child does not speak at 5 years of age. The absence of language at this age is
considered a prognostic sign of great concern (Pry, Petersen, & Baghdadli, 2009). Children with ASD who speak to some
extent have a better prognosis for future psychological development.
At the age of 2 and a half, children begin to prefer other children as companions and their choice of adults for
companionship rapidly decreases over-time (Ellis, Rogoff, & Cromer, 1981). The main communication partner for typically
developing children is their peer rather than an adult. Conversely, children with ASD tend to seek out an adult as their main
communication partner. However, research is very limited on the type of communication partners for children with ASD.
The true nature of spontaneous communication in children with ASD is an ambiguous, unknown area (Chiang, 2009). A
spontaneous response is defined as ‘‘a verbal response to a nonverbal discriminative stimulus in the absence of a verbal
discriminative stimulus’’ (Charlop, Schreibman, & Thibodeau, 1985). Few naturalistic observational studies report
differences between spontaneous and elicited communication in children with ASD.
Chiang (2009) examined the differences between spontaneous and elicited expressive communication in Australian and
Taiwanese children with ASD who were non verbal or had limited speech. The study illustrated that children with ASD with
limited speech produced more spontaneous communication than elicited communication. Functions of communication were
coded in terms of four exclusive categories, namely request, reject, greet and comment. The children were also more likely to use
unaided augmentative and alternative communication devices for requesting purposes during spontaneous communication.
Spontaneous communication was more likely than elicited communication to occur during academic activities.
Stone, Ousley, Yoder, Hogan, and Hepburn (1997) reported no difference in elicited expressive communication between
children with ASD and children with developmental delay or language impairment. However, children with ASD’s use of
spontaneous communication are emitted at a much lower frequency compared to children with developmental delay or
language impairment and typically developing children. It is a key difficulty for individuals with ASD and impairs social
development (Ingenmey & Van Houten, 1991).
Loveland, Landry, Hughes, Hall, and Mcevoy (1988) found that children with ASD used more elicited than spontaneous
communication. Hobson and Lee (1998) found that children with ASD utilized more spontaneous greetings than elicited
ones. Conversely, more prompted farewells occurred than spontaneous ones.
Stone and Caro-Martinez (1990) found that communication patterns varied as a function of the child’s cognitive level and
severity of ASD. The study also illustrated that the pro-typical communicative event involved a child directing a motoric form
of communication toward a teacher to request something or to attract attention to oneself. Lord and Magill-Evans (1995)
reported how high functioning children and adolescents with ASD produced few initiations than control participants.
There is little empirical investigation comparing the communication functions, partners, spontaneity and activities of
children with ASD to their age matched peers. Such research can help inform the development and expansion of receptive
and expressive communication curricula for children with ASD by identifying the deficits and difficulties experienced in
communication compared to typically developing peers. According to the literature, variations between the groups are
expected; however, this study aims to outline these differences in more specific detail.
1. Method
1.1. Participants
Eighteen children participated in the study. Nine children with a diagnosis of ASD were age matched to nine typically
developing children. The ages ranged from 4 years 2 months to 10 years 9 months. The mean age for the participants was 7
years 8 months.
Participant 1 to Participant 9 had a diagnosis of ASD. The mean age for children with ASD was 7 years 9 months.
Participants were selected from an Applied Behavior Analysis School with the exception of Participants 4 and 7 who were
selected from a Special Unit for children with ASD within a mainstream primary school. All children with ASD were male.
Participants diagnosed with ASD were included in the study if (a) he/she had received a diagnosis of ASD from physicians or
psychologists based on DSM or ICD 10 criteria; (b) he/she had good verbal capabilities/comprehension; (c) school placement,
teacher consent and parental consent were received.
Participants 10–18 were typically developing children. The mean age for typically developing children was 7 years 8
months. Participant 10 was selected from a pre-school. Participants 11–18 were selected from a National Primary School.
I. Forde et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 5 (2011) 1471–1478
1473
Five were male and four were female. Participants who were typically developing children were included in the study if (a)
school placement, teacher consent and parental consent were received and (b) neither teacher nor parent reported any
language delays or learning difficulties. Information on each participant is presented in Table 1.
1.2. Setting
Naturalistic settings were observed and analyzed for the entire study (i.e., each child’s school classroom and yard). All
children with ASD were observed within their ABA or special school settings. All typically developing children were observed
within their mainstream school, with the exception of participant 10 who was observed in his pre-school. Peers and adults
were available at all times in all settings.
Any verbal operant directed to the video operator was excluded from the study. Naturalistic conditions were represented
by academic activities which included; language lessons, reading, mathematics, spelling, writing and drama. Free-time
conditions included the following activities; conversing with peers/teachers, stories, watching DVDs, playing the Wii, art,
music, playing with toys/puzzles/trampoline/swing and age appropriate games e.g., chase.
1.3. Procedure
Each participant was video-taped for a 2 h 15 min period across academic and free-time activities representing the
participant’s natural environmental conditions. Each participant was observed for a 1 h and 45 min period in the academic
condition and a 30 min period in the free-time condition.
Prior to the commencement of the study and at the beginning of each 2 h 15 min video session for each participant,
teachers and classroom staff were informed of the purpose of the study and requested to maintain typical teaching and
routine schedules; this was clarified as ignoring the camera and maintaining their focus on the lesson/activity that would
occur in a typical day for the participant. The video operator did not interact with the participant or teaching staff during the
filming sessions. A total of 40 h 30 min of video footage were collected and analysed for the 18 participants in the study.
Ethical consent was obtained from the principal/director of each educational setting prior to starting the study. Parental
consent was obtained for each participant.
1.4. Communication coding
Spontaneous communication was defined as communication that was not prompted by another peer or adult.
Elicited communication was defined as communication that was prompted by another peer or adult.
These broad categories were further divided to reflect nine functions of communication. These categories included:
request (i.e., ask for an item, activity, permission), mand for information (e.g., say, ‘‘What is that?’’, ‘‘What’s the weather
like?’’, ‘‘Where are we going?’’, ‘‘What are you doing?’’, ‘‘What time is it?’’), mand for attention (e.g., say, ‘‘Look at me’’, ‘‘Come
here and look’’, ‘‘Play with me’’, ‘‘See what I have’’), greet (e.g., say ‘‘Hi’’, ‘‘Bye’’), terminate an activity (e.g., say, ‘‘I’m finished’’,
‘‘The game is over’’), comment (i.e., express an opinion on event or conversation, e.g., say, ‘‘It’s sunny’’, ‘‘It is nice’’, ‘‘That’s
cool’’), negotiation (e.g., say, ‘‘I don’t want that one’’, ‘‘Not yet’’, ‘‘I’m not ready’’, ‘‘I need more time’’, ‘‘I prefer’’), specifying
Table 1
Participant dyads and individual participant’s age, diagnosis, educational setting and gender.
Dyad number
Participant number
Age (years)
Diagnosis
Setting
Gender
1
1
10
2
11
3
12
4
13
5
14
6
15
7
16
8
17
9
18
4.2
4.5
5.3
5.4
6.6
6.6
7.4
7.3
8.5
8.3
8.8
8.8
9.3
9.4
9.8
9.10
10.9
10.6
ASD
TDa
ASD
TD
ASD
TD
ASD
TD
ASD
TD
ASD
TD
ASD
TD
ASD
TD
ASD
TD
ABA
Pre-school
ABA
PSb
ABA
PS
SSc
PS
ABA
PS
ABA
PS
SS
PS
ABA
PS
ABA
PS
Male
Female
Male
Male
Male
Female
Male
Male
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Female
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
a
b
c
Typically developing.
Primary school.
Special school.
1474
I. Forde et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 5 (2011) 1471–1478
using autoclitics (e.g., say, ‘‘I see the big red ball’’, ‘‘She has long brown hair’’, ‘‘He runs very fast’’, ‘‘This jumper is soft’’, reject
(e.g., say, ‘‘No’’).
1.5. Interobserver reliability
The first observer was the author of the current study. A second observer was trained to code the data. The first
observer independently coded the data for each 2 h 15 min video. The second observer independently coded the data for
six 2 h 15 min video periods across six randomly selected participants. In total 13 h 30 min was coded by a second
observer and inter observer agreement was calculated at 90%. Interobserver data were recorded on the function of
communication, the spontaneity of that communication to a communicative partner in a specific condition (namely
academic or free play).
Agreement was calculated by dividing the frequency of verbal operants (in each factor) in which observers agreed upon
by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying the result by 100% (Bailey & Bostow, 1979).
1.6. Data analysis
A mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to evaluate the functions of communication emitted by all
participants. One between subjects factor ASD and four within subject factors (communication partner, type of condition,
spontaneity/elicited communication and function of communication) were analyzed. The dependent variable was verbal
operants. ASD had two levels, children with ASD or typically developing children. Type of condition had two levels (academic
and free-time). Function of communication utilized had nine levels (request, mands for information, mands for attention,
greeting, terminates an activity, comment/tact, language of negotiation, specifying using autoclitics and reject). Type of
communication partner had two levels, peer or adult. Spontaneity of communication had two levels, namely spontaneous or
elicited communication.
Four independent variables (factors) had only two levels therefore Mauchly’s Test of Sphericity was not testable,
however, degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse Geisser estimates of Sphericity.
2. Results
There was no significant difference between the number of functions of communication used and diagnosis (ASD v
typically developing children) (F1,16 = 1.398, p = .254, partial h2 = .080).
2.1. Condition
The data show there was an interaction effect for the type of condition and ASD F1,16 = 7.832, p = .013, partial h2 = .329.
Typically developing children had a greater amount of communication in the free-time setting (M = 4.04) than children with
ASD (M = 1.44). Conversely, children with ASD had slightly more communication in the academic condition (M = 5.01) than
typically developing children (M = 4.73).
2.2. Communication partner
There was an interaction effect for type of communication partner and ASD (F1,16 = 47.118, p = .000, partial h2 = .747)
illustrating a strong effect size. The predominant communication partner for children with ASD was an adult (M = 5.78)
compared to typically developing children (M = 1.80). The main communication partner for typically developing children
was their peer (M = 6.97) compared to children with ASD (M = 0.68).
2.3. Spontaneous and elicited communication
There was an interaction effect for spontaneous communication and ASD F1,16 = 7.053, p = .038, partial h2 = .306. Typically
developing children engaged in more spontaneous communication (M = 6.37) than children with ASD (M = 3.57) where as
children with ASD engaged in more elicited communication (M = 2.88) than typically developing children (M = 2.39).
2.4. Communication partner and spontaneous/elicited communication
There was an interaction effect between types of communication partner, spontaneity of communication and ASD
F1,16 = 13.399, p = .002, partial h2 = .456. Typically developing children had more spontaneous communication to their peers
(M = 10.44) than children with ASD (M = 1.23) and also had more elicited communication to their peers (M = 3.49) compared
to children with ASD (M = 0.12). Conversely, children with ASD had more spontaneous communication to adults (M = 5.91)
than typically developing children (M = 2.30) and far more elicited communication to adults (M = 5.64) compared to typically
developing children (M = 1.29). As illustrated in Table 2, children with ASD had more spontaneous communication to their
peers (M = 1.23) than elicited communication (M = 0.12).
I. Forde et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 5 (2011) 1471–1478
1475
Table 2
Mean number of communication operants for spontaneity of communication emitted to a communicative partner and diagnosis.
ASD
Communicative partner
Spontaneity
Mean
ASD
ASD
ASD
ASD
Typically
Typically
Typically
Typically
Peer
Peer
Teacher
Teacher
Peer
Peer
Teacher
Teacher
Spontaneous
Elicited
Spontaneous
Elicited
Spontaneous
Elicited
Spontaneous
Elicited
1.23
0.12
5.91
5.64
10.44
3.49
2.30
1.29
developing
developing
developing
developing
2.5. Condition and function of communication
There was an interaction effect between condition, function of communication utilized and ASD F8,128 = 3.744, p = .001,
partial h2 = .190. In the academic condition, children with ASD had more requests than typically developing children.
However, in the free-time condition, typically developing children had more requests compared to children with ASD as
illustrated in Table 3.
In both conditions, typically developing children had more mands for information than children with ASD. In the
academic condition, children with ASD had slightly more mands for attention than typically developing children. Conversely,
typically developing children had more mands for attention in the free-time condition.
Table 3 also demonstrates how children with ASD had more negotiated communication, rejection, greetings and
terminated more activities compared to typically developing children. Typically developing children emitted more
comments/tacts and specified far more using autoclitics than children with ASD.
2.6. Complex interaction effects
There was an interaction effect between type of communication partner, function of communication utilized and ASD
(F8,128 = 20.642, p = .000, partial h2 = .563). Typically developing children had far more comments to their peers (M = 31.03)
than children with ASD (M = 2.86), more mands for information (M = 7.97) than children with ASD (M = 0.22), specified more
using autoclitics (M = 7.72) than children with ASD (M = 1.50), more requests (M = 6.58) than children with ASD (M = 0.61),
more mands for attention (M = 4.25) than children with ASD (M = 0.53) and more greetings, termination of activities,
negotiated language and language of rejection to their peers than children with ASD (means ranging from 2.75 to .056).
Conversely, children with ASD had more requests to (M = 11.28) compare to typically developing children (M = 2.08) and
far more comments to adults (M = 23.03) compared to typically developing children (M = 7.56). Children with ASD also had
more negotiated communication (M = 4.97) to adults than typically developing children (M = 0.17), more mands for attention
Table 3
Mean number of functions of communication emitted in each condition and diagnosis.
Function of communication
Condition
Mean ASD
Request
Academic
Free time
10.17
1.72
Mean typically developing
5.00
3.67
Mands for information
Academic
Free time
2.89
0.75
7.03
3.28
Mands for attention
Academic
Free time
2.09
1.11
2.03
2.61
Greetings
Academic
Free time
1.39
0.333
0.028
0.167
Terminate an activity
Academic
Free time
0.528
0.028
0.056
0.111
Comment
Academic
Free time
19.528
6.361
20.611
17.972
Negotiation
Academic
Free time
4.917
0.139
0.944
1.333
Autoclitics
Academic
Free time
1.944
0.139
5.361
5.222
Reject
Academic
Free time
1.639
0.639
1.500
1.972
1476
I. Forde et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 5 (2011) 1471–1478
(M = 2.67) than typically developing children (M = 0.39), more mands for information (M = 3.42) than typically developing
children (M = 2.33) and emitted more communication of rejection (M = 2.06) than typically developing children (M = 0.72).
However, typically developing children specified more using autoclitics (M = 2.86) than children with ASD (M = 2.36).
There is an interaction effect between spontaneous/elicited communication, function of communication utilized and ASD
(F8,128 = 4.727, p = .015, partial h2 = .228). Typically developing children had more spontaneous mands for information
(M = 8.17) compared to children with ASD (M = 2.92), more spontaneous mands for attention (M = 4.50) than children with
ASD (M = 3.00), more spontaneous comments (M = 26.08) than children with ASD (M = 12.28), more spontaneous autoclitics
(M = 8.00) than children with ASD (M = 3.28), more spontaneous communication of rejection (M = 1.50) than children with
ASD (M = 0.47) and more spontaneous negotiated communication (M = 0.97) compared to children with ASD (M = 0.42).
Conversely, children with ASD had more spontaneous requests (M = 8.50) compared to typically developing children
(M = 7.83), more spontaneous greetings (M = 1.06) than typically developing children (M = 0.17) and finally more
spontaneous communication in relation to terminating an activity (M = 0.22) than typically developing children (M = 0.14).
Children with ASD have more elicited requests (M = 3.39) compared to typically developing children (M = 0.83), more
elicited greetings (M = 0.67) than typically developing children (M = 0.03) and more elicited communication in terminating
an activity (M = 0.33) than typically developing children (M = 0.028). Children with ASD also had more elicited comments
(M = 13.61) than typically developing children (M = 12.5) and far more elicited negotiated communication (M = 4.64)
compared to typically developing children (M = 1.31). Typically developing children had more elicited autoclitics (M = 2.58)
than children with ASD (M = 0.58) and slightly more communication of rejection (M = 1.97) than children with ASD
(M = 1.81). Children with autism had slightly more elicited mands for attention (M = 0.19) compared to typically developing
children (M = 0.14).
There was a four way interaction effect for communication partner, spontaneous/elicited communication, function of
communication utilized and ASD (F8,128 = 4.632, p = .011, partial h2 = .224). Typically developing children had far more
spontaneous requests to their peers (M = 11.89) than children with ASD (M = 1.06), more spontaneous mands for information
to their peers (M = 12.72) compared to children with ASD (M = 0.39) and more spontaneous mands for attention to their peers
(M = 8.22) compared to children with ASD (M = 1.00). Typically developing children also had more far more spontaneous
comments to their peers (M = 44.72) than children with ASD (M = 5.06). Typically developing children also had more elicited
comments to their peers (M = 17.33) compared to children with ASD (M = 0.67), far more elicited autoclitics to their peers
(M = 4.06) than children with ASD (M = 0.06), more elicited communication of rejection to their peers (M = 2.72) compared to
children with ASD (M = 0.06) and more elicited mands for information to their peers (M = 3.22) than children with ASD
(M = 0.06). Children with ASD had more spontaneous requests to adults (M = 15.94) than typically developing children
(M = 3.78), far more spontaneous comments to adults (M = 19.50) than typically developing children (M = 7.44) and more
spontaneous mands for attention (M = 5.44) than typically developing children (M = 3.61). Typically developing children
spontaneously specified more using autoclitics to adults (M = 4.61) than children with ASD (M = 3.61). Children with ASD had
more elicited comments to adults (M = 26.56) than children with ASD (M = 7.67), more elicited communication of negotiation
to their adults (M = 9.22) compared to typically developing children (M = 0.11) and more elicited communication of rejection
to adults (M = 3.61) compared to typically developing children (M = 1.22).
There was a five way interaction effect for type of condition, communication partner, spontaneous/elicited
communication, function of communication utilized and ASD (F8,128 = 3.304, p = .034, partial h2 = .171). In the academic
condition, children with ASD had more spontaneous requests to adults (M = 28.11) compared to typically developing
children (M = 5.00), more spontaneous comments to adults (M = 30.00) than typically developing children (M = 12.89) and
more spontaneous greetings to adults (M = 3.56) than typically developing children (M = 0.015).
In the academic condition, children with ASD had more elicited negotiated communication to adults (M = 18.22)
compared to typically developing children (M = 0.11) and more elicited communication of rejection to adults (M = 5.78)
compared to typically developing children (M = 1.67). In the free-time condition, typically developing children had more
spontaneous comments to their peers (M = 51.67) compared to children with ASD (M = 7.89), more spontaneous requests to
their peers (M = 11.44) than children with ASD (M = 2.71), more spontaneous mands for information to their peers
(M = 10.11) compared to children with ASD (M = 0.44), more spontaneous mands for attention to their peers (M = 9.78)
compared to children with ASD (M = 2.00), spontaneously specified more using autoclitics to their peers (M = 15.56)
compared to children with ASD (M = 7.89) and spontaneously emitted the language of rejection (M = 4.67) compared to
children with autism (M = 0.89).
3. Discussion
An effect for type of condition, communication partners, spontaneous/elicited communication and function of
communication between children with ASD and typically developing children was found. There was no difference between
the number of functions of communication and diagnosis. More specifically, children with ASD emitted as many functions of
communication as typically developing children across both conditions (academic and free play).
There was a significant difference for communication partner whereby the main communication partner for children
with ASD was an adult in contrast to typically developing children who communicated more frequently with their peers. This
finding is consistent with typical development in peer relationships and social interactions. From the age of 2 years and 6
months, children begin to prefer other children as companions and their choice of adults for companionship rapidly
I. Forde et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 5 (2011) 1471–1478
1477
decreases over-time (Ellis et al., 1981). Conversely, the dominant communication partner for children with ASD was an adult.
This observation may be due to the qualitative impairment in social interactions manifested by a failure to develop peer
relationships appropriate to developmental age, a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment and interests with others
and a lack of social reciprocity (APA, 2000).
The current findings demonstrated that typically developing children engaged in more spontaneous communication than
children with ASD. In addition, the current findings support those of Loveland et al. (1988) who demonstrated that children
with ASD use more elicited than spontaneous communication. However, these findings are in contrast to the findings of
Chiang (2009) who reported that children with ASD in the natural environment used more spontaneous than elicited
communication. Interestingly, the current study demonstrated comparison data of age matched children with ASD and
typical development which is in contrast to Hsu Min Chiang’s research. Chiang’s research did not employ an age matched
group of normal development thereby the finding on the quantity of spontaneous communication could not suggest that
children with ASD produce a normal level of spontaneous communication. In the current study, typically developing children
engaged in more spontaneous communication than children with ASD whereas children with ASD engaged in more elicited
communication than typically developing children. It is the first study of its kind to include a matched control group analysis
of the effects of setting, communication partner on elicited and spontaneous communication of children with ASD and
typically developing children.
Spontaneous social language often requires systematic intervention to master basic social language skills (Harris,
Handleman, & Alessandri, 1990). Children with ASD can often emit few verbal operants in their educational environment,
particularly around play time. There are various explanations for this lack of language interactions. Many children are
under the control of vocal verbal antecedents, without these verbal cues, children do not emit spontaneous mands and
tacts.
Typically developing children had more spontaneous communication to their peers than children with ASD. This may be
reflected by the schedule of reinforcement received from typically developing children engaging in social interactions with
their peers compared to a low schedule of reinforcement for children with ASD with other children with ASD. Conversely,
children with ASD had more spontaneous and elicited communication to adults compared to typically developing children.
The abundance of spontaneous communication to adults may reflect how children with ASD have greater opportunities to
respond to adults versus peers within their typical educational settings. This may be attributed to low teacher student ratios
within special schools i.e., average 30 children in mainstream versus 6 children in a special school class. Children with ASD
can often rely heavily on prompts (i.e., modelling) and verbal cues (i.e., questions or related comments) to elicit
communication. Without verbal cues, communication occurs at an extremely low frequency or in a restricted manner for
children with ASD. Clearly, children with ASD benefit from structured activities in which they are closer to their
communication partners and have more opportunities to communicate.
Children with ASD emitted more negotiated communication, communication of rejection, greetings and terminated more
activities across the academic condition compared to typically developing children. In this condition, children with ASD had
far more language of negotiation than typically developing children. This may be due to specific motivating operations
surrounding negative reinforcement. In the free-time condition, typically developing children emitted more negotiated
language than children with ASD. Once again, this illustrates the difficulty children with ASD have with social interactions in
relation to the quantity and quality of functions of communication emitted.
In both the academic and free-time conditions, children with ASD emitted the language of rejection more than typically
developing children. Conversely, in free-time, typically children produced a greater amount of language of rejection than
children with ASD. Interestingly, typically developing children appear to have stronger motivating operations to produce the
language of rejection around free-time in comparison to children with ASD e.g., ‘‘No, I don’t want to play’’ around free-time
versus ‘‘No’’ in an academic condition for children with ASD.
In both conditions, children with ASD emitted more greetings compared to typically developing children. Greeting’s is
one of the primary functions of communication taught to children with ASD to help increase eye contact, social interactions
and verbal initiations with others. Also, the school environment for children with ASD is usually smaller and educators
engage in greetings as much as possible ensuring opportunities to respond are as high as possible throughout their entire
school day.
Children with ASD also terminate more activities than typically developing children in an academic condition. This may
be due to functional communication training whereby an alternative appropriate response (e.g., finished) is taught to
children with ASD who may not like to participate in a particular task and to decrease inappropriate or challenging behaviors.
In contrast, during the free-time condition, typically developing children terminated more activities than children with ASD
e.g., board games, football games, etc.
Conversely, typically developing children specified far more using autoclitics, mands for information, mands for attention
and emitted more tacts across particular conditions than children with ASD. This result illustrates how many children with
ASD have defective mand and tact repertoires which are associated with complex communication functions such as ‘‘Wh’’
questions (Greer & Ross, 2007). Many children with autism have the ability to tact objects and actions in their environment
but present huge difficulty in establishing tact as a functional communication skill i.e., reporting events (Naoi, Yokoyama, &
Yamamato, 2007). In addition to this, children with ASD often had difficulty with joint attention, social interactions and
interactive games with their peers whereby they would not seek out attention from others, perhaps illustrating why mands
for attention are much lower compared to typically developing children.
1478
I. Forde et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 5 (2011) 1471–1478
There are some limitations to the study. There was no difference between the number of functions of communication and
diagnosis. The study did not examine the topography of language (i.e., sentence length, or number of words) rather it focused
on a behavioral analytical approach to language examining the functions of communication emitted by both children with
ASD and their age matched typically developing peers.
Future research could examine the topography of communication emitted by children with ASD and typically developing
children. Although functions of communication were similar between groups, typically developing children produced more
elaborate communication forms. In terms of communication partners, future research could also focus on examining the
effects of different communication partners on spontaneous/elicited communication e.g., adult versus teacher, peer versus
unknown peer, sibling versus parent.
References
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed. Text Revision DSM-IV-TR). Washington, DC: Author.
Bailey, J. S., & Bostow, D. E. (1979). Research methods in applied behavior analysis. Tallahassee, FL: Copy Grafix.
Carr, E., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 111–126.
Carr, E. G., & Kologinsky, E. (1983). Acquisition of sign language by autistic children: Spontaneity and generalisation effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16,
297–314.
Charlop, M. H., & Trasowech, J. E. (1991). Increasing autistic children’s spontaneous speech. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 747–761.
Charlop, M. H., & Walsh, M. E. (1986). Increasing autistic children’s spontaneous verbalizations of affection: An assessment of time delay and peer modelling
procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 307–314.
Charlop, M. H., Schreibman, L., & Thibodeau, M. G. (1985). Increasing spontaneous verbal responding in autistic using a time delay procedure. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 18, 155–166.
Chiang, H.-M. (2009). Differences between spontaneous and elicited expressive communication in children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3,
214–222.
Ellis, S., Rogoff, B., & Cromer, C. (1981). Research reports: Age segregation in children’s social interactions. Developmental Psychology, 17(4), 399–407.
Greer, R. D., & Ross, D. E. (2007). Verbal behavior analysis: Inducing and expanding new verbal capabilities in children with language delays. Allyn & Bacon: Pearson.
Harris, S. L., Handleman, J. S., & Alessandri, M. (1990). Teaching youths with autism to offer assistance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 297–305.
Hobson, R., & Lee, A. (1998). Hello and goodbye: A study of social engagement in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 28, 117–127.
Ingenmey, R., & Van Houten, R. (1991). Using time delay to promote spontaneous speech in an autistic child. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 591–596.
Lord, C., & Magill-Evans, J. (1995). Peer interaction of autistic children and adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 611–626.
Lord, C., & McGee, J. P. (Eds.). (2001). Educating children with autism. Washington: National Academy Press.
Loveland, K. A., Landry, S. H., Hughes, S. O., Hall, S. K., & Mcevoy, R. E. (1988). Speech acts and the pragmatic deficits of autism. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, 31, 593–604.
Matson, J. L., Sevin, J. A., Box, M. L., & Francis, K. L. (1993). An evaluation of two methods for increasing self initiated verbalisations in autistic children. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 389–398.
Naoi, N., Yokoyama, K., & Yamamato, J. (2007). Intervention for tact as reporting in children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1, 174–184.
Pry, R., Petersen, A. F., & Baghdadli, A. (2009). Developmental changes of expressive language and interactive competences in children with autism. Research in
Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3, 98–112.
Rice, M. L., Warren, S. F., & Betz, S. K. (2005). Language symptoms of developmental language disorders. An overview of autism, Down syndrome, fragile X, specific
language impairment and Williams syndrome. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26(1), 7–27.
Shaffer, D. R. (2007). Developmental psychology. London: Thomson Learning.
Stone, W. L., & Caro-Martinez, L. M. (1990). Naturalistic observations of spontaneous communication in autistic children. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 20, 437–453.
Stone, W. L., Ousley, O. Y., Yoder, P. J., Hogan, K. L., & Hepburn, S. L. (1997). Nonverbal communication in two- and three-year-old children with autism. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27, 677–696.
Sundberg, M. L., & Partington, J. W. (1998). Teaching language to children with autism or other developmental disabilities. Danville, LA: Behaviour Analysts Inc.
Volden, J., & Lord, C. (1991). Neologisms and idiosyncratic language in autistic speakers. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 21, 109–130.