JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2017, 50, 789–804 NUMBER 4 (FALL)

TEACHING CONVERSATIONAL SPEECH TO CHILDREN WITH

AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER USING TEXT-MESSAGE PROMPTING
DENISE GROSBERG
CLAREMONT GRADUATE UNIVERSITY

AND

MARJORIE H. CHARLOP
CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE

The present study was designed to teach conversational speech using text-message prompts to
children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in home play settings with siblings and peers. A
multiple baseline design across children was used. Children learned conversational speech
through the text-message prompts, and the behavior generalized across peers and settings. Main-
tenance of treatment gains was seen at 1-month follow-up probes. Social validity measures indi-
cated that parents of typically developing children viewed the participants’ conversational speech
as much improved after the intervention. Results are discussed in terms of the efficacy of text-
message prompts as a promising way to improve conversational speech for children with ASD.
Key words: autism spectrum disorder, conversational speech, scripts, technology-based
treatment

Children with autism spectrum disorder
(ASD) tend to exhibit deficits in conversational
speech that limit their interaction with others in
their social environment (Diagnostic and Statisti-
cal Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed.; DSM-5;
American Psychiatric Association, 2013). They
generally do not ask questions or respond to
comments or questions from others (Schuler &
Wolfberg, 2000). These speech deficits persist
over time and may become more severe as the
children get older (Krasny, Williams, Proven-
cal, & Ozonoff, 2003).
One avenue of research that has been partic-
ularly fruitful in teaching conversational skills
to children with ASD has been the use of
scripts (Krantz & McClannahan, 1993). Scripts
prompt individuals with ASD to engage in eve-
ryday conversations that are important for
social interaction (Wong et al., 2014). Addi-
tionally, they provide an opportunity for
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Denise Grosberg, Division of Behavioral and
Organizational Sciences, Claremont Graduate University.
E-mail: dbgrosberg@gmail.com.
doi: 10.1002/jaba.403
© 2017 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
789
individuals to learn verbal (i.e., initiations and
responses) and nonverbal (e.g., approaching
others) social behavior (McClannahan &
Krantz, 2005). Studies have demonstrated the
effectiveness of scripts on the emergence of
unscripted verbalizations, phrases that differ
from those specifically written in the scripts
(Brown, Krantz, McClannahan, & Poulson,
2008; Reagon & Higbee, 2009; Sarokoff, Tay-
lor, & Poulson, 2001). Studies have also shown
that conversational statements generalize to
new stimuli (i.e., toys and games), conversa-
tional partners, and settings (e.g., Charlop, Gil-
more, & Chang, 2008; Charlop-Christy &
Kelso, 2003; Sarokoff et al., 2001).
Researchers have begun to extend scripts to
more naturalistic use. Studies have now
included parents as trainers and used scripts in
play groups. Reagon and Higbee (2009)
demonstrated the effectiveness of training
mothers to use scripts to increase verbal initia-
tions of their children with ASD during play
activities. Additionally, Erickson-Tomaino
(2011) developed a collaborative (between par-
ent and therapist) parent-training model for
790 DENISE GROSBERG and MARJORIE H. CHARLOP
script development to teach conversation skills
to children with ASD. Most recently,
Ledbetter-Cho et al. (2015) used a script-fading
pro[cedure for children with ASD during a play
group with typically developing peers.
Scripts are especially useful because they can
be adapted for use on an electronic device,
which may be as or more socially acceptable
outside of clinical settings than paper-based
scripts (Ramdoss et al., 2010; Raulston et al.,
2013). A growing number of studies have
investigated the use of technological applica-
tions, which may be more socially acceptable
learning tools due to their portability and
appeal to both children with ASD and typically
developing peers (Ayres, Mechling & Sansosti,
2013; Macpherson, Charlop, & Miltenberger,
2015). For example, a nationally representative
sample found that 64% of children with ASD
spend more time engaging with electronic
screen media compared to children with other
developmental delays (Mazurek, Shattuck,
Wagner, & Cooper, 2012). Portable devices
may enhance social validity, and technology
such as cell phones, iPads, or laptops may
serve as. Common stimuli that facilitate gener-
alization (Stokes & Baer, 1977).
One form of electronic screen media is short-
messaging communication, or texting. Texting
is especially popular among preteens, teenagers,
and young adults (Ling & Baron 2007; Roberts,
Foehr, & Rideout, 2010). In a large American
sample, 46% of 8- to 18-year-olds reported that
they typically send text messages daily, and
those who text estimated that they devote about
1.5 hr daily to sending and receiving text mes-
sages (Roberts et al., 2010). Delivering scripts
via text messaging may be advantageous. First,
cell phones are common in the majority of set-
tings in the United States today. Second, scripts
can be easily texted on a cell phone, which is a
socially acceptable device and pervasive part of
present-day lives for children, teens, and adults.
Third, the ease with which texts can be typed,
sent from afar, modified to an ongoing
situation, faded, and maintained may enable
them to be used by various change agents
(therapists, teachers, parents, playmates).
Finally, studies have shown that electronic
screen usage is frequent with children with ASD
(e.g., Mazurek et al., 2012), suggesting that
these children are likely to interact with this
type of intervention. The present study was
designed to assess: (1) the efficacy of using text-
message prompts to teach conversational speech
to children with ASD; (2) conversational speech
during play in the home with typically develop-
ing siblings or a same-aged peer; (3) generaliza-
tion of conversational speech across untrained
community settings with peers and untrained
community settings with unfamiliar peers; and
(4) the social validity of behavior change.
METHOD
Participants
Six children with ASD between the ages of
7 and 11 participated (see Table 1) in the cur-
rent study. All participants were diagnosed by a
licensed medical or other clinical professional
and met the criteria for ASD as defined in the
DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association,
2013). Participants attended a university-based,
applied behavior analysis (ABA) intervention
program and participated in general behavioral
programming to improve language, communi-
cation, play, and social skills. Criteria for partici-
pation also included generalized verbal imitation
skills and use of phrases of at least three intelligi-
ble words for the purpose of engaging in a con-
versation. Verbal skills were assessed through
two behavioral observations prior to baseline. In
addition, the participants needed to read and
understand simple sentences of at least three
words in length to be included in this study.
Twelve typically developing siblings or peers
(aged 4-9) served as conversational partners in the
baseline, testing, and generalization phases of the
study. Typically developing siblings (no more
than 6 years older or younger than the child)
 TEXT-MESSAGE PROMPTING 791

Table 1
Characteristics of Each Participating Child with ASD

Reading Typically
Chrono- Mean WJ-III Assess- Developing Sibling/ Typically
logical Length VABS Subtest Age ment Peers Age (Year- Developing Peers
Age (Year- Utter- (Year- Equiva-lent Word Month) (Baseline & Age (Year- Month)
Child Ethnicity Month) ance Month) (Year-Month) Length Testing) (General-ization)
Jake Asian 10-3 5 7-4 10-2 6 4-2 6-3
Larry Hispanic- 7-3 4 5-3 6-5 6 8-2 8-10
Caucasian
Landon Caucasian 7-1 4 6-1 6-7 6 6-2* 6-8
Rory Asian 6-1 4 5-2 4-1 3 8-1 7-9
Julie Hispanic 6-2 5 5-6 6-5 6 8-1 8-3
Aaron Indian 6-4 4 5-5 6-0 6 7-7 7-1

Note. * indicates peer conversational partner.

served as conversational partners for participants Verbal behavior observations: Children

who had an eligible sibling. Landon did not have
an eligible sibling. Therefore, a typically develop-
ing peer who often played with Landon at the
university-based ABA intervention program
served as his conversational partner.
Assessment of Child Functioning and Verbal
Behavior Skills
Several measures were included as preassess-
ments for the participants and their typically
developing conversational partners. Assessments
for the participants included: (1) verbal behav-
ior observations; (2) the Vineland Adaptive
Behavior Scales (VABS; Sparrow, Balla, & Cic-
chetti, 1984); (3) the Letter-Word Identifica-
tion and Passage Comprehension subtests of
the Woodcock Johnson-III (WWJ-III; Wood-
cock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001); and (4) a
reading assessment created for this study. These
assessments were used to determine eligibility
for inclusion in the study. Eligibility criteria
included verbal ability of at least three intelligi-
ble words, communication, social, and adaptive
skills of at least a 36-month-old level, and basic
reading skills of sentences of at least three
words in length. These assessments were admi-
nistered prior to the intervention and are dis-
cussed below.
with ASD. The experimenter observed partici-
pants for two 5-min sessions in the playroom
of the behavioral treatment center with a typi-
cally developing conversational partner and
assessed mean length utterance (MLU). MLU
was used to determine if the participants met
the intake language requirement and was used
to determine the length of text messages for the
intervention (i.e., children with longer MLUs
received longer texts). Vocalizations did not
need to be directed to another child or stated
with correct grammar, but needed to include at
least three intelligible words. For example, a
child who repeated the syllables “buh buh buh”
would not qualify for participation in the pres-
ent study, but a child who said “I want train”
would qualify.
Verbal behavior observations: Typically devel-
oping conversational partners. Verbal behavior
observations of the typically developing conver-
sational partners were conducted to assess how
much children, in general, converse with each
other during play activities. Five 5-min play
sessions between similar-aged, typically devel-
oping siblings of the participants were recorded
to assess the number of conversational
exchanges during play (i.e., board games, pre-
tend play, figurine play). An independent
observer scored the videos by averaging the
792 DENISE GROSBERG and MARJORIE H. CHARLOP
number of conversational exchanges made by
each peer in the dyad. The overall average
number of conversational exchanges was used
as the mastery conversational exchange rate cri-
terion for study participants in the present
study. On average, the typically developing
dyads engaged in eight conversational
exchanges per child.
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS).
The VABS is a standardized, semistructured
interview used to assess adaptive behavior in
four domains: motor skills, socialization, com-
munication, and daily-living skills. The sociali-
zation and communication domains were
administered in the present study with parents
or caregivers familiar with the behavior of the
individual child. Only children who demon-
strated adaptive behavior functioning above a
36-month-old level were eligible for participa-
tion in the study.
Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities,
Third Edition (WJ-III): Letter–word identifica-
tion and passage comprehension subtests. The
letter–word identification and passage compre-
hension subtests of the WJ-III were used to
assess literacy ability for the present study.
Only children that demonstrated letter–word
identification and passage comprehension skills
above a 36-month-old level were eligible for
participation in the study.
Reading assessment. This measure was devel-
oped by the research team to evaluate the read-
ing skills of participants with items similar to
what would be used for the prompts. The
measure consisted of 10 play/social phrases,
including three questions (e.g., “Want to play
blocks?”), three comments (e.g., “I like your
train!”), and four responses (e.g., “Yes, I’ll play
Candyland”) displayed on a cell phone. These
phrases ranged from three to six words in
length. Although some words were difficult
(e.g., “Candyland”), prior observations and par-
ent report indicated that the children could
read such familiar proper nouns. However, the
assessment did not control for the reading level.
Only children with ASD who could read at
least 2 out of the 10 sentences were eligible for
participation in the present study. This assess-
ment was used to determine the length (three
words to six words) of the texts to later be used.
The participant who read fewer sentences dur-
ing the reading assessment had difficulty read-
ing phrases beyond three words in length.
Therefore, the texts used for that participant
(Rory) consisted of three-word phrases only.
Materials
The toys and games selected were familiar to
the participant so that no additional training
was needed to teach the participant how to
read, play, or understand the activities selected.
The parents of the children participating in the
study provided cell phones with text-messaging
capabilities. A camera was used to record videos
of all phases of the study.
Settings
Assessment of child functioning, verbal
behavior skills, and reading assessments were
conducted in a clinic that the participants
attended regularly. The room contained a small
table, two chairs, and several shelves with a
variety of toys and teaching materials placed in
containers. All experimental sessions (baseline,
training, testing) took place at the home of the
participant, typically in a playroom or family
room that included a variety of toys, books,
and games based on the participant’s age, func-
tioning level, and interests. Generalization
probes were conducted at an indoor commu-
nity recreation center.
Data Collection and Dependent Measures
The dependent measures included the num-
ber of scripted and unscripted conversational
phrases for the testing, generalization, and
follow-up sessions. The primary researcher
scored all videotaped sessions, and interobserver
agreement was assessed by comparing a second
 TEXT-MESSAGE PROMPTING
coder’s scores for 33% of sessions for each con-
dition. Coders manually recorded the number
of conversational phrases made by the children.
A conversational phrase consisted of any con-
textually appropriate speech including initia-
tions, responses, or comments about the play
items or play activities. Conversational phrases
needed to be pertinent to the situation or an
ongoing conversation. For example, if a partici-
pant said, “I like playing with you,” the state-
ment was coded as a conversational phrase
because it was contextually appropriate. If a
participant said, “I don’t like blue,” and he/she
were playing with various colored blocks, the
statement was coded as a conversational phrase.
However, if the participant said, “Turkey hot
dogs!” the statement was not coded at all. If the
participant repeated the same appropriate
phrase in a row, the phrase was coded only
once. If the participant repeated the same
phrase more than twice, but not necessarily in
a row, in the same conversation, the phrase was
coded twice and then not scored again as cor-
rect. In addition, the experimenter kept a rec-
ord of the content of the text messages
delivered to the participants during the training
and testing phases of the study.
Scripted conversational phrases. Scripted con-
versational phrases were those that matched the
text messages presented in the relevant training
session. Conversational phrases that differed
only in the conjunctions, articles, prepositions,
or pronouns were also scored as scripted
phrases (Brown et al., 2008). For example, if
the text message read, “That game is fun,” and
the participant said, “That game was fun,” it
would be scored as a scripted phrase. Phrases
that differed in any other manner from the pre-
sented text messages were not scored as scripted
phrases.
Unscripted conversational phrases. Unscripted
conversational phrases were those that were
appropriate and did not match the text mes-
sages. If a participant constructed a conversa-
tional phrase that was similar to the content of
793
a text but differed from the text by more than
conjunctions, articles, prepositions, or pro-
nouns, it was scored as an unscripted, conversa-
tional phrase. For example, if the text was, “I
like Candyland,” and the participant said, “I
want to play Candyland,” this was scored as an
unscripted conversational phrase.
Procedure
Pre-experiment assessment. All of the partici-
pants were presented with the assessment mea-
sures discussed above and met eligibility criteria
for the study. The participants’ scores on these
assessments can be seen in Table 1.
Baseline. A concurrent, multiple-baseline
design across participant was used to assess the
number of conversational phrases (questions,
comments, and responses) acquired using the
text-message prompt. During baseline, the par-
ticipant and the typically developing conversa-
tional partner were seated across from each
other on the floor in the home playroom
(approximately 1 m apart). A variety of toys,
books, and games were placed on the floor to
promote conversations between the participant
and the conversational partner. The cell phone
was placed on the floor approximately 0.5 m
from the participant’s dominant hand. The cell
phone’s password was on so the participant
could not use the phone to download a game.
If the participant were to pick up the cell
phone, the participant would be instructed to
place the cell phone down and play with
his/her friend. However, this did not happen
during the study. Before each baseline session,
the experimenter said to the participant,
“[Child’s Name], it’s time to talk with ____.”
Data were collected during baseline on partici-
pants’ frequency of conversational exchanges
over a 5-min period. The experimenter pro-
vided no additional instructions, feedback, or
prompts. The only instruction provided to the
sibling/peer was that he/she should verbally
respond with a question or comment that
794 DENISE GROSBERG and MARJORIE H. CHARLOP
makes sense to the situation (i.e., “Say, ‘Yes I’ll
play trains with you’”; “Say, ‘I like your tower
too!’”) if the participant spoke to him or her.
The sibling or peer could initiate conversation
or spontaneously engage the participant, but
was not explicitly instructed to do so by the
experimenter.
Text-message-prompt training. Training con-
sisted of teaching the participant to manipulate
the cell phone, receive the texts, and then to
say the content of the text message during con-
versations. This training was conducted twice
per week at the participant’s home. The experi-
menter conducted two or three 5-min training
sessions over a 2-hr period. Breaks were pro-
vided between each session. During breaks, the
participant was not involved in any activities
related to the present study but was allowed to
eat lunch/snack, play outside, watch TV/iPad,
play in his/her room, or take a walk with a par-
ent. The participant did not interact with the
experimenter. The experimenter also used this
time to discuss general progress in the
university-based ABA program with the parent.
Because the participants did not have prior
experience with texting, they were taught how
to access and read texts presented on a cell
phone. The cell phone for each participant
belonged to the mother, and thus varied in
model across participants. The participant was
seated with the experimenter, playing with pre-
ferred toys and games. As in baseline, the cell
phone was placed directly next to the partici-
pant at the start of each session. The experi-
menter discreetly sent a text message consisting
of a comment or question about the play activ-
ity to the cell phone. When the cell phone
indicated that a text message had been received,
the experimenter verbally instructed the partici-
pant to push the text-retrieval button and read
the text message to the experimenter. Mothers
informed the fathers not to text during treat-
ment sessions. They were also asked to tempo-
rarily block their “favorites” on their phones
(most phones had this capability). The protocol
for unexpected incoming texts was for the
experimenter to merely say to the participant,
“That is not your line,” and show the partici-
pant that the experimenter’s name is not where
it typically should be. However, no unexpected
texts came in.
If the participant did not initially respond to
the verbal instruction, the experimenter
repeated the verbal instruction and added a par-
tial physical prompt by placing the participant’s
hand on the cell phone. All participants in the
study were familiar with the function of the
text-retrieval button on their mother’s phone
and did not require explicit instructions to
complete this step. The experimenter practiced
this step with the participant in this way until
the participant pressed the button and read the
text message to the experimenter without
prompting, across two consecutive training ses-
sions. Two to three training sessions were nec-
essary for each participant to learn how to use
the phone to read the text messages. The exper-
imenter then brought in a familiar adult con-
versational partner, usually a therapist, and
removed herself from the immediate area
(approximately 2 m from the participant). The
conversational partner was instructed that
he/she should verbally respond with a question
or comment that makes sense to the situation if
the participant spoke to him or her. The adult
conversational partner also was also told not to
verbally initiate conversation with the partici-
pant to provide the participant the opportunity
to practice this skill. The participant and adult
conversational partner were seated across from
each other on the floor in the home playroom
(approximately 0.5 m apart). A variety of toys,
books, and games were placed on the floor to
promote conversations between the participant
and the conversational partner. The cell phone
was placed on the floor approximately 0.25 m
from the participant’s dominant hand. The
experimenter told the participant, “[Child’s
Name], it’s time to play and talk with
[Adult’s Name].”
 TEXT-MESSAGE PROMPTING
During play, the experimenter sent eight
texts to the participant (consisting of an appro-
priate social initiation question, comment, or
statement), which the participant read out loud
to the adult conversational partner. Each play
session started with a verbal-initiation text sent
to the participant. After the conversational part-
ner’s comment or question, the participant’s
phone beeped again with a text message from
the experimenter with a contextually appropri-
ate conversational phrase for the participant to
read to the partner. A time delay of approxi-
mately 10 s was embedded during training.
This delay consisted of the time it took the
experimenter to text a contextually appropriate
response to the participant, following an adult
conversational partners’ statement.. Also, this
delay allowed for play with toys or games to
occur. The adult conversational partner would
have verbally prompted (e.g., “Look at your
phone,” or, “Read the message”) the participant
to read the text if no response was made, but
this did not occur. After each 5-min play ses-
sion, the participant was given praise for gen-
eral behavior, play, and attention (e.g., “Great
job sitting so nicely!”).
The text-message prompts continued until
the participant provided at least eight conversa-
tional phrases (prompted or unprompted) to
the adult conversational partner across two con-
secutive 5-min training sessions. Phrases could
include either reading the text-message prompt
aloud or using independent conversational
phrases. If the participant initiated or
responded appropriately and independently to
his/her adult conversational partner, text mes-
sages were not sent to the participant’s cell
phone by the experimenter. However, if the
participant did not initiate or respond inde-
pendently or appropriately to his/her adult con-
versational partner within 10 s of the adult’s
response, the experimenter texted the partici-
pant with a contextually appropriate initiation
or response to keep the conversation going.
When the participant met criterion of saying
795
eight conversational phrases within two consec-
utive training sessions, the cell phone was
removed and the participant was tested for con-
versational skills with his/her typically develop-
ing sibling or peer.
Testing. During testing sessions, the cell
phone was removed from the play setting and
sessions followed the same procedure as baseline
described above with the sibling or peer. As in
baseline, the experimenter said, “[Child’s
Name], it’s time to talk to [Peer’s Name].” The
sibling or peer was reminded at the beginning of
each testing session to respond to the participant
as in baseline. Two 5-min testing sessions were
conducted, and the criterion of eight conversa-
tional phrases across these two consecutive ses-
sions was required before generalization was
assessed. If the participant did not meet this cri-
terion during testing sessions, training was rein-
troduced with the adult conversational partner,
using the cell phone in the same way as
described during training. Once the participant
met criterion with the adult conversational part-
ner and cell phone, testing was again conducted.
If the participant still did not meet the mastery
criterion, a script-fading procedure was intro-
duced with the adult conversational partner.
Script fading. Script-fading procedures were
modeled after McClannahan and Krantz’s
(2005) guidelines and consisted of delivering a
full sentence, then delivering a sentence with-
out the last word, then delivering a sentence
without the last two words, and so on. Because
each sentence was varied, the script fading
could consist of the following: “I like your
ball,” then “that’s cool,” then “give me,” then
“I,” and, finally, no words, with the phone
removed completely. Script fading was only
needed for one participant (Jake).
Generalization probes. Five-min generaliza-
tion probes were conducted throughout base-
line and once the participant reached criterion
without the cell phone with the sibling or peer.
All generalization sessions were conducted at an
indoor community recreation center with either
796 DENISE GROSBERG and MARJORIE H. CHARLOP
the sibling or peer who participated in the test-
ing phase or a peer not associated with sessions
in the home environment. Unfamiliar peers
included siblings of other children enrolled in
the university ABA intervention program. The
community recreation center consisted of a
series of small and large dining tables on the
right side of the center, two empty pool tables
on the left side, and a small open area in the
middle. Generalization sessions took place at
the dining tables, but children had access to
other areas of the community center. None of
the participants had been to the recreation cen-
ter prior to the study. Like baseline, the partici-
pant and the typically developing
conversational partner were seated across from
each other at a small table located in the corner
of the recreation center. Only the peer conver-
sational partner, the participant, the experi-
menter, and two observing therapists from the
ABA program were present. A variety of toys,
books, and games familiar to the participant
were placed on the table to promote conversa-
tion between the peer conversational partner
and the participant. The procedure for the gen-
eralization sessions was identical to that of base-
line, except that the cell phone was not present.
Follow-up. Follow-up probes (using the same
procedures as testing and generalization ses-
sions) were conducted with all six participants
1 month after the last testing session to assess
whether the participants had maintained the
conversation skills learned during training.
Interobserver agreement. Thirty-three percent
of each of the baseline, training, testing, generali-
zation, and follow-up sessions were coded by a
second observer. The primary and secondary
observers scored for the occurrence and nonoc-
currence of all conversational speech during each
5-min session. Interobserver agreement was cal-
culated by dividing the total number of agree-
ments between the two observers by the total
number of agreements plus disagreements and
then multiplying by 100 to get a percentage.
Interobserver reliability of appropriate
conversational speech during baseline for the six
children ranged from 85%-100%, during text-
message training ranged from 88%-100%, and
during testing ranged from 92%-98%. Further-
more, interobserver reliability during generaliza-
tion and follow-up probes ranged from
89%-97%.
Social validity. Twenty mothers of school-
aged children unfamiliar with the participants
and objectives of the study watched 24 video-
taped clips of the participants’ sessions. These
clips were blocked in sets of two 5-min baseline
and two 5-min testing sessions, randomly
selected from each of the six children’s sessions
(totaling 120 min of video). In addition, base-
line and testing session clips were randomly
presented within each block so that parents
could not identify which clips were baseline or
testing sessions. After each of the twenty-four
5-min clips, the parents answered a variety of
questions regarding the participant’s speech and
play behavior that were printed on paper.
Examples of such questions included, “Does
the child demonstrate an interest in having a
conversation with his/her peers?” and “Would
my child want to talk with this peer?” State-
ments and questions were rated on a 1-7 Likert
scale with 1 being strongly disagree, 4 being
neutral, and 7 being strongly agree. Social
validity data were taken after generalization
probes were completed for all children. Social
validity questions can be seen in Table 3.
RESULTS
Child Training, Testing, and Follow-up Data
Results from Larry, Aaron, and Jake are pre-
sented in Figure 1. Results for Julie, Landon,
and Rory are presented in Figure 2. During
baseline, all children demonstrated limited con-
versational speech with a peer. By the end of the
study, all participants met criterion of at least
eight conversational phrases following training
sessions with the familiar adult conversational
partner. In addition, all participants met testing
 TEXT-MESSAGE PROMPTING 797

Figure 1. Baseline, training, testing, and follow-up data for Larry, Aaron, and Jake.*Script Completely Faded.

criterion of at least eight conversational phrases
with a neurotypical sibling or peer when the text
message prompts were removed. Only one par-
ticipant (Jake) required script fading. Generali-
zation to untrained peers and settings was also
demonstrated for all participants.
Data for Larry are shown in the upper
panel of Figure 1. Larry used few conversa-
tional phrases (one to three phrases) during
baseline. After the first set of training sessions,
Larry did not meet mastery criteria during
testing with his sibling. Therefore, text
798 DENISE GROSBERG and MARJORIE H. CHARLOP

Figure 2. Baseline, training, testing, and follow-up data for Julie, Landon, and Rory.

message prompt training was reintroduced, neurotypical sibling. Larry’s conversational

after which Larry exceeded the mastery crite- speech also generalized across a different set-
rion of eight conversational phrases by using ting and peer, and maintained at 1-month
9 and 11 phrases during testing with his follow-up.
 TEXT-MESSAGE PROMPTING 799

Data for Aaron are shown in the middle Data for Julie are shown in the top panel of
panel of Figure 1. Aaron demonstrated minimal Figure 2. Julie exhibited between two to five
conversation skills (two to three phrases) during conversational phrases during baseline. How-
baseline. However, he only required three train- ever, she only required two training sessions
ing sessions with the text-message prompts to with the text-message prompts to exceed mas-
exceed mastery criterion for conversational tery criterion for conversational phrases (using
speech during testing (15-16 conversational 15-16 conversational phrases) during testing
phrases) with his sibling without the cell with her sibling without the cell phone. She
phone. Aaron also met the criterion for conver- also demonstrated generalization of conversa-
sational phrases during both generalization ses- tional speech and maintenance of the target
sions and maintained his conversation skills at behavior in both intervention and generaliza-
1-month follow-up. tion sessions at 1-month follow-up.
Data for Jake are shown in the lower panel Data for Landon are shown in the middle
of Figure 1. Jake engaged in the lowest number panel of Figure 2. Landon exhibited one to
of conversational phrases of the participants four conversational phrases during baseline ses-
during baseline (one or two phrases) with his sions. He also only required two training ses-
sibling. Although Jake asked and answered con- sions with the text message prompts to exceed
textually appropriate questions during training mastery criterion for conversational speech
with a familiar adult, he did not independently (using 15-16 conversational phrases) during
meet mastery criteria during testing with his testing with a familiar peer without the cell
phone. In addition, Landon’s conversational
sibling when the cell phone was removed. Dur-
skills generalized across setting and peer and
ing the first two testing phases, the number of
maintained above the mastery criterion at 1-
conversational phrases Jake used improved only
month follow-up.
minimally above baseline levels, ranging from
Data for Rory are shown in the bottom
two to three phrases. Therefore, script fading
panel of Figure 2. Rory engaged in three to
was implemented, during which time the texts
four phrases with his sibling during baseline
were gradually faded word by word until the
sessions. After three training sessions with text
cell phone was removed completely. During his message prompts, he met mastery criterion
third testing phase, Jake met mastery criteria, with his sibling without the cell phone, emit-
using nine conversational phrases for each 5- ting more instances of conversational speech
min testing opportunity with his sibling. This during testing than any of the other partici-
behavior also generalized across a new setting pants (14-18 conversational phrases). The
and conversational partner, with whom he
emitted 12 conversational phrases during the
generalization probe, but did not generalize at Table 2
the criterion level to a new setting with his sib- Percentage of Conversational Phrases Unscripted For
ling, with whom he emitted six conversational Each Phase
phrases during the generalization probe. Follow-
Although the target behavior did not maintain Participant. Training Testing Generalization Up
at criterion level during 1-month follow-up Larry 20% 88% 100% 100%
with his sibling in the intervention or generali- Aaron 25% 80% 100% 100%
Jake 0% 40% 75% 80%
zation setting, the behavior did maintain at Julie 20% 100% 100% 100%
high levels (11 phrases) across an unfamiliar Landon 40% 95% 100% 100%
Rory 50% 95% 100% 100%
peer and setting.
800 DENISE GROSBERG and MARJORIE H. CHARLOP

target behavior also generalized and maintained

2.3 (.5) 4.9 (.6)

1.9 (.6) 6.09 (.7)

2.36 (.5) 4.73 (.8)

2.45 (.5) 4.82 (.6)

2.18 (.8) 5.09 (.6)

4.8 (.8) 2.45 (.7) 5.55 (1.1) 2.36 (.5) 5.91 (.8) 2.45 (.5) 4.81 (.8)
5.1 (.7) 2.82 (.6) 5.55 (1.1) 2.73 (.5) 5.64 (1.1) 2.73 (.5) 5.09 (.7)
M (SD)
Post
at 1-month follow-up with data well above

Larry
baseline levels.

M (SD)
Pre
Scripted and Unscripted Conversational
Phrases

2.2 (.8) 5.9 (.9)

2.4 (.8) 6.27 (.8)

2.64 (.5) 5.55 (.7)

2.36 (.5) 5.27 (.8)

2.45 (.5) 5.54 (.8)

M (SD
Post
Table 2 shows the percentage of conversa-

Landon
tional phrases that were unscripted. Each par-
ticipant engaged in a higher percentage of

M (SD)
Pre
conversational phrases that were unscripted
during testing, generalization and maintenance

2.3 (.5) 5.2 (.4)

1.8 (.8) 6.18 (.8)

4.7 (.8) 2.36 (.5) 4.73 (.8)

4.8 (.6) 2.64 (.7) 4.91 (.9)

5.1 (.6) 2.18 (.8) 5.09 (.9)

M (SD
probes relative to training sessions. Only Jake

Post
used scripted phrases during any generalization

Aaron
and follow-up probes.

M (SD)
Pre
Social Validity of Child Outcomes

5.0 (.6)
Table 3 shows differences between ratings of

6.1 (.7)
M (SD
Post
participants’ pre- and posttreatment conversa-
Participant Social Validity Outcomes

Jake

tional behavior, which were compared through M (SD))

2.3 (.5)
2.0 (.6)

2.4 (.5)

2.4 (.5)

2.2 (.8)

2.4 (.5)
2.7 (.5)
paired samples t-tests on each of the seven
Pre

questionnaire items for each child. All children

were rated higher on every posttreatment item,

5.6 (1.1)
Table 3

M (SD)
6.0 (.9)
6.3 (.8)

5.5 (.7)

5.3 (.8)

5.5 (.8)

5.9 (.8)
Post

with these differences attaining statistical signif-

Rory

icance on six to seven of the seven items for the

M (SD)
2.3 (.8)
2.7 (.8)

2.6 (.5)

2.4 (.5)

2.4 (.5)

2.4 (.5)
2.7 (.5)
individual children. Higher scores indicate
Pre

responses that were more favorable. For five of

the six children (all except Julie), the difference 5.5 (1.1)
5.5 (1.1)
M (SD)
5.2 (.4)
6.2 (.8)

4.7 (.8)

4.9 (.9)

5.1 (.9)
Post

between pretreatment and posttreatment scores

was highest for the second item: “Does the
Julie

child demonstrate an interest in having a con-

M (SD)
2.3 (.5)
1.7 (.8)

2.4 (.5)

2.6 (.7)

2.2 (.8)

2.4 (.7)
2.8 (.6)
Pre

versation with his/her peers?”

2. Does the child demonstrate an interest in having a
1. Does the child spontaneously converse with peers?

3. Does the child make appropriate verbal initiations

5. Does the child look like he/she wants to talk with

7. Does this child socially interact with his/her peer?

DISCUSSION
4. Does the child make appropriate responses to

6. Would my child want to talk with this peer?

The results of this study suggest that the

text-message prompts increased conversational
speech for the children with ASD. Both
conversation with his/her peers?

scripted and, importantly, unscripted conversa-

tional speech increased with relatively few inter-
Social Validity Question

vention sessions for all six children in this

study. Generalization of conversational speech
his/her peers?

occurred to either a new setting or a new set-

to peers?

ting and conversational partner, and mainte-

peers?

nance of conversational speech at 1-month

follow-up was evident. Only one child (Jake)
 TEXT-MESSAGE PROMPTING
required script fading, which was easily imple-
mented into the text-messaging protocol and
resulting in generalization and maintenance of
conversational speech.
The improvement in conversational speech
seen in this study holds important implica-
tions for children with ASD (Charlop et al.,
2008). The majority of verbal children with
ASD typically have difficulty with reciprocal
conversational speech. Instead, they frequently
provide one-word answers to questions and
do not ask questions of others
(e.g., Schreibman, 2005). The present
research addresses this problem by using an
intervention tool that models conversational
phrases that consist of both questions and
responses. This type of structuring of conver-
sational phrases has been demonstrated in
prior literature to be germane in teaching the
natural flow of conversational speech
(e.g., Charlop & Milstein, 1989; Charlop-
Christy & Kelso, 2003; Sherer et al., 2001).
The content analysis of the children’s con-
versational speech provided another promising
result of the study in that, over time, the
number of scripted phrases decreased, and the
number of unscripted phrases increased. This
is important given that for most children with
autism, a stereotypic, robotic style of interac-
tion dominates their discourse skills (Charlop
et al., 2008). Perseverative speech, preoccupa-
tions or “obsessions” with certain topics
(e.g., maps, capitals of states), and routine
scripts tend to typify conversations
(Schreibman, 2005). In the present study, the
scripts included response variation, which has
been shown in past research to replace perse-
verative speech with appropriate speech
(e.g., Charlop et al., 2008; Charlop & Mil-
stein, 1989; Ledbetter-Cho et al., 2015).
Additionally, the children in the present study
were texted conversational phrases in real
time, which allowed the intervention to be
contextually relevant and appropriate to the
play situation. The texted conversational lines
801
were fluid, based on the present activities and
the conversational partner’s speech, further
incorporating variation in prompted speech.
The varied texts were sent to a cell phone
present in the play setting, with minimal dis-
ruption in the setting. This is an important
departure from hard-copy scripts, which gen-
erally require alteration in physical stimuli
(e.g., paper or whiteboards, pencils or mar-
kers, erasers) and interruption in the conversa-
tion and play.
During text-message prompting, the child
merely looks at the phone to see the conversa-
tional phrases. As previously discussed, cell
phones are not stigmatizing, serve as common
stimuli, and are perhaps motivating for the
children (e.g., Ling & Helmersen, 2000;
Mazurek et al., 2012). Although a bug-in-the-
ear approach might be affordable, most families
do not have access to these materials, and many
children with ASD are hypersensitive to sound
or may be annoyed with a device in their ear.
By contrast, cell phones are apparently available
almost everywhere in the natural environment
and can be used for a number of different types
of treatment for children with ASD. Texting
can be seen as a natural-setting phenomenon
popular with persons of all ages. Cell phones
can make learning for children with ASD
mobile, are unobtrusive across learning and
therapeutic environments, and are often accessi-
ble to parents and service providers (Zickuhr &
Smith, 2012). Specialized features of smart-
phones (e.g., WiFi connectivity, built-in cam-
era) also offer opportunities for more
innovative instructional interventions, includ-
ing expanding the scope of available communi-
cation partners (e.g., a child can have a
conversation with another peer of similar ability
and age level in another state or country) and
providing immediate performance feedback
(Rakes, Fields, & Cox, 2006).
Examining the social validity of conversa-
tional speech as a target behavior is also impor-
tant. Parents of typically developing children
802 DENISE GROSBERG and MARJORIE H. CHARLOP
(not associated with this study) thought the
conversational speech of children with ASD
was more socially appropriate with peers after
intervention than before. This suggests that the
parents noticed an improvement in conversa-
tional skills that coincided with the
empirical data.
There are several limitations to the current
study. The initial training occurred with a
familiar adult as the conversational partner
before the child then participated in the play
sessions with his sibling or peer. This was done
to explore the feasibility of this new treatment.
The next step in research would be to assess
whether incorporating the text-message prompt
directly into play sessions with children with
ASD and a peer would also be effective. The
reading assessment created for screening partici-
pants in the study assessed phrases similar to
the phrases that would be texted to the partici-
pants, but did not control for the reading level
of all potential participants, which could limit
its effectiveness in identifying target groups of
children who could benefit from the
intervention.
In the present study, siblings served as con-
versational partners for the children with ASD
because they had around-the-clock availability
and the parents preferred they serve as conver-
sational partners. However, siblings may not
always make the best conversational partner
and it might behoove the researcher to have an
initial screening assessment to identify the
appropriateness of the sibling as a conversa-
tional partner. In the present study, Jake’s sib-
ling was younger and had some difficulty when
engaging in play activities, especially when the
activity was nonpreferred. Jake’s sibling often
protested when Jake chose a game or activity
that was not of interest to him. Often when
Jake spoke to his sibling, the sibling would not
respond appropriately and sometimes would
not respond at all, even when verbally
prompted by the experimenter. In addition,
Larry’s sibling demonstrated impaired play
skills for her age, struggling with turn taking,
sharing materials, and engaging in a contextu-
ally appropriate conversation. However, despite
these concerns, all the children with ASD in
the present study learned from the text message
prompts.
There are many areas to pursue for future
research. First, parents or an older sibling could
be the “texter” (e.g., Reagon & Higbee, 2009).
This has implications not only for streamlining
the intervention by removing the teaching
component with therapists, but also for allow-
ing the intervention to be used more consist-
ently and across a broader range of social
settings, increasing the likelihood of better
maintenance and generalization of conversa-
tional skills. Second, speech skills could be
taught in other community settings, as texts
could be sent to the child to prompt conversa-
tional speech at birthday parties, scout meet-
ings, and so on. Additionally, cell phone
texting could be used for other target behaviors
in addition to conversational speech. Potential
applications of this technology could address
behavioral challenges associated with transitions
and changes in the child’s routine. For exam-
ple, a child with ASD could receive texts at
school to indicate changes to his or her sched-
ule or a text message reminder at the park a
few minutes before the parent has to leave as a
proactive intervention method to ward off chal-
lenging behaviors (Cihak, Fahrenkrog, Ayers, &
Smith, 2010).
Given that research on mobile phones as
learning tools is still in its infancy, best prac-
tices and standards for mobile phone learning
still need to be identified. Considerable
research is required to uncover how to design
learning materials for delivery on mobile
devices and what is the right mix of technol-
ogy for the most effective interventions. The
blend of technology and treatment, and in
this specific case, texting and talking, may be
appropriate avenues of research in the field
of ASD.
 TEXT-MESSAGE PROMPTING
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
Ayres, K. M., Mechling, L., & Sansosti, F. J. (2013). The
use of mobile technologies to assist with life skills/
independence of students with moderate/severe intel-
lectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorders:
Considerations for the future of school psychology.
Psychology in Schools, 50, 259–271. https://doi.org/
10.1002/pits.21673.
Brown, J. L., Krantz, P. J., McClannahan, L. E., &
Poulson, C. L. (2008). Using script fading to pro-
mote natural environment stimulus control of verbal
interactions among youths with autism. Research in
Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2(3), 480–497. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2007.08.006.
Charlop, M. H., Gilmore, L., & Chang, G. T. (2008).
Using video modeling to increase variation in conver-
sations of children with autism. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 23(3), 47–66. doi:https://doi.
org/10.1177/016264340802300305.
Charlop, M. H., & Milstein, J. (1989). Teaching autistic
children conversational speech using video modeling.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22(3), 275–285.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1989.22-275.
Charlop-Christy, M. H., & Kelso, S. E. (2003). Teaching
children with autism conversational speech using a
cue card/written script program. Education and Treat-
ment of Children, 26(2), 108–127. Retrieved from
http://www.educationandtreatmentofchildren.net/.
Cihak, D., Fahrenkrog, C., Ayres, K. M., & Smith, C.
(2010). The use of video modeling via a video iPod
and a system of least prompts to improve transitional
behaviors for students with autism spectrum disorders
in the general education classroom. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 12(2), 103–115. doi:https://
doi.org/10.1177/1098300709332346.
Erickson-Tomaino, M. (2011). Teaching conversation to
children with autism: Assessment of the efficacy of a
parent-implemented script procedure (Doctoral disserta-
tion). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & The-
ses. (UMI No. 3449924).
Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (1993). Teaching
children with autism to initiate to peers: Effects of a
script-fading procedure. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 26, 121–132. doi:https://doi.org/10.1901/
jaba.1993.26-121
Krasny, L., Williams, B. J., Provencal, S., & Ozonoff, S.
(2003). Social skills interventions for the autism spec-
trum: Essential ingredients and a model curriculum.
Child & Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North
America, 12(1), 107–122. Retrieved from http://
www.childpsych.theclinics.com/.
Ledbetter-Cho, K., Lang, R., Davenport, K., Moore, M.,
Lee, A., Howell, A., ... O’Reilly, M. (2015). Effects
of script training on the peer-to-peer communication
803
of children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 785–799. doi:https://
doi.org/10.1002/jaba.240.
Ling, R., & Baron, N. S. (2007). Text messaging and IM:
Linguistic comparison of American college data. Jour-
nal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(3), 291–298.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X06303480.
Ling, R., & Helmersen, P. (2000, July). “It must be neces-
sary, it has to cover a need”. The Adoption of Mobile
Telephony Among Pre-Adolescents and Adolescents. Oslo,
Norway: Conference on the Social Consequences of
Mobile Telephony.
Macpherson, K., Charlop, M. H., & Miltenberger, C. A.
(2015). Using portable video modeling technology to
increase the compliment behaviors of children with
autism during athletic group play. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 45(12), 3836–3845.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2072-3.
Mazurek, M. O., Shattuck, P. T., Wagner, M., &
Cooper, B. P. (2012). Prevalence and correlates of
screen-based media use among youths with autism
spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Develop-
mental Disorders, 42(8), 1757–1767. doi:https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10803-011-1413-8.
McClannahan, L. E., & Krantz, P. J. (2005). Teaching
conversation to children with autism. Bethesda, MD:
Woodbine House.
Rakes, G. C., Fields, V. S., & Cox, K. E. (2006). The
influence of teachers’ technology use on instructional
practices. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 38(4), 409–424. doi:https://doi.org/10.
1080/15391523.2006.10782467.
Ramdoss, S., Lang, R., Mulloy, A., Franco, J.,
O’Reilly, M., Didden, R., & Lancioni, G. (2010).
Use of computer-based interventions to teach com-
munication in individuals with autism spectrum dis-
orders: A systematic review. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 20(1), 55–76. doi:https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10864-010-9112-7.
Raulston, T., Carnett, A., Lang, R., Tostanoski, A.,
Lee, A., Machalicek, W.,... Didden, R. (2013).
Teaching individuals with autism spectrum disorder
to ask questions: A systematic review. Research in
Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7(7), 866–878. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2013.03.008.
Reagon, K. A., & Higbee, T. S. (2009). Parent-
implemented script fading to promote play-based ver-
bal initiations in children with autism. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 659–664. doi:https://
doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-659.
Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U. G., & Rideout, V. J. (2010).
Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8-18 year-olds.
Retrieved from the Kaiser Family Foundation web-
site: http://kff.org/other/report/generation-m2-media-
in-the-lives-of-8-to-18-year-olds/.
Sarokoff, R. A., Taylor, B. A., & Poulson, C. L. (2001).
Teaching children with autism to engage in conversa-
tional exchanges: Script fading with embedded textual
804 DENISE GROSBERG and MARJORIE H. CHARLOP
stimuli. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 81–
84. doi:https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2001.34-81.
Schreibman, L. (2005). The science and fiction of autism.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Schuler, A. L., & Wolfberg, P. J. (2000). Promoting peer
play and socialization: The art of scaffolding. In
A. M. Wetherby & B. M. Prizant (Eds.), Autism spec-
trum disorders: A transactional developmental perspec-
tive (pp. 251–277). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
Sherer, M., Pierce, K.L., Paredes, S., Kisacky, K. L.,
Ingersoll, B., & Schreibman, L. (2001). Enhancing
conversation skills in children with autism via video
technology. Behavior Modification, 25(1), 140–158.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445501251008.
Sparrow, S., Balla, D., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1984). The
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (Survey Form). Cir-
cle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technol-
ogy of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 10, 349–367. doi:https://doi.org/10.1901/
jaba.1977.10-349.
Wong, C., Odom, S. L., Hume, K., Cox, A. W.,
Fettig, A., Kucharczyk, S., ... Schultz, T. R. (2014).
Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young
adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Chapel Hill,
NC: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter
Graham Child Development Institute, Autism
Evidence-Based Review Group.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001).
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement [Examiner’s
manual]. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Zickuhr, K., & Smith, A. (2012). Digital differences. Retrieved
from the Pew Research Center website: http://www.
pewinternet.org/2012/10/17/digital-differences-2/.
Received December 30, 2014
Final acceptance August 2, 2016
Action Editor, Claire St. Peter