See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/362719796

Generalized Imitation and Applied Behavior Analysis

Chapter · August 2022

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-88538-0_35

CITATIONS READS

0 307

3 authors, including:

Meghan A. Deshais
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
19 PUBLICATIONS   46 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Meghan A. Deshais on 16 August 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Generalized Imitation and Applied
Behavior Analysis

Meghan A. Deshais, Jacquelyn MacDonald, and Leslie Quiroz

Generalized Imitation and ABA

Many children with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) exhibit marked deficits in
imitative behavior (Rogers et  al., 2003). Imitation is when a person exhibits a
response that is physically identical to a modeled response that precedes it (i.e., an
adult waves their hand and a child waves their hand immediately thereafter).
Typically developing children begin to imitate between 8–12  months (American
Academy of Pediatrics, 2004) and most do so without any explicit intervention or
training. Conversely, among children with an ASD, many require targeted interven-
tion to learn to imitate others. Although some researchers have proposed that imita-
tion deficits may represent a core deficit of an ASD (Rogers & Williams, 2006;
Williams et al., 2004), it is unclear if these deficits are a unique characteristic of an
ASD or if they can be accounted for by developmental impairment (Rogers
et al., 2003).
Various theories and models have been put forth to explain the mechanism(s)
responsible for imitation deficits observed in children with an ASD including differ-
ences in neurology (i.e., mirror neuron system), physiology (i.e., motor planning),
and “social motivation” (Andreou & Skrimpa, 2020; Chevallier et al., 2012; Chetcuti
et al., 2019). Despite the number of published studies on the topic, there appears to
be no consensus about the origins of imitation deficits in individuals with an
ASD.  However, a discussion of the literature aimed at elucidating the source of
imitation deficits is beyond the scope of this chapter and is generally not relevant in

M. A. Deshais (*) · L. Quiroz

Caldwell University, Caldwell, NJ, USA
e-mail: mdeshais@caldwell.edu
J. MacDonald
Regis College, Weston, MA, USA

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 821

J. L. Matson, P. Sturmey (eds.), Handbook of Autism and Pervasive
Developmental Disorder, Autism and Child Psychopathology Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88538-0_35
822 M. A. Deshais et al.

a behavior analytic approach to treating imitation deficits or excesses in this

population.
Imitation plays a critical role in learning over the course of a person’s lifetime.
As Bandura pointed out in his 1977 book, imitation helps people to learn new skills
quickly and efficiently.
“Although behavior can be shaped into new patterns to some extent by rewarding and pun-
ishing consequences, learning would be exceedingly laborious and hazardous if it pro-
ceeded solely on this basis…For this reason it would be ill-advised to rely on differential
reinforcement of trial-and-error performance in teaching children to swim, adolescents to
drive automobiles, and adults to develop complex occupations and social competen-
cies…Even in instances where it is possible to establish new response patterns throughout
other means, the process of acquisition can be considerably shortened by providing appro-
priate models.” (p. 5)

Given the potential of imitation skills to facilitate the timely acquisition of other
skills, it is perhaps not surprising that imitation has been described as a behavioral
cusp (Rosales-Ruiz & Baer, 1997). A behavioral cusp is a behavior change that
greatly increases the likelihood of additional, subsequent changes in the individual’s
repertoire. When an individual learns new skills from a model, the trajectory of their
learning has the potential to change dramatically.
The presence or absence of early imitation skills may have a number of down-
stream effects for children with an ASD. One of the goals of applied behavior ana-
lytic intervention is to address skill deficits that impact an individual’s quality of
life. When teaching new skills to children with an ASD, many behavior analysts
employ prompting hierarchies that include a model prompt. If a child with an ASD
does not have generalized imitation (i.e., the child is not able to copy novel actions),
model prompts are not likely to occasion correct responses. For example, Gregory
et al. (2009) found that deficits in imitation skills may impact the acquisition of sign
language or exchange-based communication responses by children with an
ASD. Given the usefulness of modeling as a teaching tool, it is perhaps not surpris-
ing that imitation skills prior to treatment have been found to be predictive of treat-
ment outcomes for children with an ASD (Sallows & Graupner, 2005).
In this chapter we will briefly describe higher order repertoires such as general-
ized imitation and OL from a conceptual standpoint as well as provide an overview
of the assessment of imitation skills in children with an ASD and strategies for
teaching imitation including discrete trial teaching (DTT), naturalistic teaching, and
reciprocal imitation training. We will review research aimed at identifying effective
procedures and remediation strategies for teaching imitation to children with an
ASD. Throughout the chapter, we will discuss clinical implications of research find-
ings, identify gaps in the current literature base, and suggest avenues for future
research.
Generalized Imitation and Applied Behavior Analysis 823

Higher Order Imitative Repertoires

The goal of imitation training for children with an ASD is not for the child to learn
to clap after a therapist claps or to learn dozens of non-contextual discrete target
responses. Rather, the ultimate goal of imitation training is for the child to develop
higher-order imitative repertoires. Higher order imitative repertoires include gener-
alized imitation and OL. Below we will describe these higher-order imitative reper-
toires and their importance as well as research that has been conducted in these areas.

Generalized Imitation

A person has a generalized imitative repertoire when they can imitate novel
responses and when not every single instance of imitation has to be reinforced for
imitative behavior to persist (Baer & Sherman, 1964). Generalized imitation can be
conceptualized as a combination of stimulus generalization and response general-
ization in the sense that new, untrained stimuli (models) occasion new, untrained
responses (imitative behaviors). Research has shown that generalized imitation can
be established by reinforcing a sufficient number of imitative responses (Garcia
et  al., 1971). Said another way, once an individual learns a number of specific
responses to specific models (e.g., waving, clapping, stomping feet), the individual
eventually learns the skill of imitation and can emit responses that have not been
explicitly taught. This skill may emerge at different points for different children.
Some children may begin imitating novel models after learning only a couple of
discrete responses (e.g., waving and blowing a kiss). For others, the “tipping point”
may not occur until they have learned hundreds of discrete responses or may
never occur.
In addition to reproducing novel models, a person with a generalized imitative
repertoire will continue to exhibit imitative responses even when reinforcement is
intermittent. Research has shown that as long as some imitative responses are rein-
forced, individuals will continue to imitate nonreinforced responses (Baer et  al.,
1967; Baer & Sherman, 1964; Brigham & Sherman, 1968; Garcia et  al., 1971;
Gewirtz & Stingle, 1968; Lovaas et al., 1966; Poulson et al., 2002; Young et al.,
1994). Conversely, if reinforcement is discontinued altogether, all imitative
responses will decrease. These findings suggest that imitative behavior may consti-
tute a functional response class (Catania, 2007; Peterson, 1968).
To determine whether generalized imitation has emerged in a child with an ASD,
many behavior analysts conduct novel probes intermittently during imitation train-
ing. In other words, every so often (typically after the child has mastered a new set
of target responses), the practitioner will conduct trials in which they present novel,
untrained models. Correct responding during novel probe trials suggests that gener-
alized imitation may be emerging. Incorrect responding suggests that generalized
imitation has not emerged and additional target responses likely need to be taught.
824 M. A. Deshais et al.

The findings that generalized imitation can be established by reinforcing a suf-

ficient number of imitative responses and that intermittent reinforcement is neces-
sary to maintain imitative responding contributed to the development of the
conditioned-reinforcement hypothesis of generalized imitation (Baer & Deguchi,
1985; Baer et al., 1967; Baer & Sherman, 1964). This theory posits that the pairing
of the reinforcer with the stimulus products produced by initial imitative responses
results in those stimulus products becoming conditioned reinforcers (Baer &
Deguchi, 1985). In other words, the topographical similarity between the child’s
response and the model acquires reinforcing properties. Producing sameness, in a
sense, becomes reinforcing by way of the relationship between sameness and rein-
forcement. As is the case with all conditioned reinforcers, the stimulus products
yielded by imitative responses can maintain their effects only if they are continually
associated with another reinforcer. The discontinuation of other sources of rein-
forcement (i.e., social or tangible reinforcement) for imitative responding will
weaken the reinforcing efficacy of similarity and will ultimately result in imitative
responding extinguishing (Baer & Deguchi, 1985).
Prior research on generalized imitation has yielded some surprising and notable
findings. The findings from a number of studies suggest that the emergence of gen-
eralized imitation might not occur all at once (Garcia et al., 1971; Poulson et al.,
2002; Young et  al., 1994). Rather, generalization may sometimes be restricted to
groups of models and corresponding responses according to topographical boundar-
ies. Poulson et  al. exposed typically developing infants to imitation trials across
three imitation tasks (motor without toy, motor with toy, and vocal). Reinforcement
(i.e., praise) was delivered following correct imitative responses during training tri-
als and withheld during probe trials. Training was staggered across response types
in a multiple baseline design. Increases in correct responding to nonreinforced
probe trials were only observed after training was introduced to each respective
imitation task. For example, correct responding to “motor without toy” probe trials
was not observed until that task was put into training even though the other two
tasks (vocal and motor with toy) had been in training for quite some time. In other
words, generalization within the imitation task was observed but generalization
across imitation tasks was not. Garcia et al. also observed generalization within but
not across four imitation tasks (small motor, large motor, short vocal, and long vocal
responses). Similarly, Young et  al. reported generalization within but not across
three imitation tasks (vocal, toy-play, and pantomime responses). Collectively, these
studies suggest that existence of generalization boundaries according to imitation
task groupings is a relatively well-established phenomenon. The groupings of imita-
tion tasks in these studies were largely determined by the body part involved in the
response and the presence or absence of an object. Dividing imitative responses into
task groupings according to these response features is common not only in research
(as evidenced by the studies described above) but also in clinical practice. For
example, in clinical practice, imitation of gross motor responses (i.e., responses that
involve the arms, legs, or entire body) is often taught separately from vocal
responses. Perhaps, however, the presence or absence of an object and the body
parts involved in the response are not the only response features by which
Generalized Imitation and Applied Behavior Analysis 825

generalization could be bound. Deshais and Vollmer (2020) found that children with
an ASD who were taught to imitate repetitive models (e.g., driving a car back and
forth) were more likely to exhibit untrained repetitive responses than untrained
fixed responses (e.g., putting a car on top of a garage). One possible explanation for
these results is that, consistent with the findings of prior researchers, within-task
generalization was observed but across-task generalization was not. Although it is
not common in clinical practice to group imitative responses based on whether the
response is fixed or repetitive, there is precedent for assessing them separately in the
ABLLS-R (Partington, 2006). The findings of Deshais and Vollmer suggest that the
type of movement involved in target responses could be another feature that delin-
eates different imitative tasks and serves as a generalization boundary.
The findings of the studies described above may have implications for designing
imitation training sequences for children with an ASD. Let us consider an example.
If the first response that a child learns is to roll a car back and forth on the table,
within-task generalization could occur in a number of different ways. It is possible
that generalization to other motor movements involving toys could occur, similar to
the findings of Young et al. (1994) and Poulson et al. (2002). Generalization to other
repetitive movements is also possible, consistent with the results reported by
Deshais and Vollmer (2020). Or, generalization to imitative tasks delineated by
other boundaries could be observed such as generalization to responses involving
arm movement or responses involving horizontal movement. In words, the spread of
effect could move in many different directions. The clinical implication of the find-
ings related to within-task generalization is that practitioners designing imitation
training programs might be able to develop instructional sequences that capitalize
on within-task generalization. It might prove to be an efficient strategy to target
responses that are very different from one another topographically (i.e., many dif-
ferent types of imitative tasks are taught simultaneously) during the initial stages of
teaching with the aim of producing within-task generalization across many tasks.
The goal of designing an instructional sequence that takes the possibility of within-­
task generalization into account would be to produce maximum acquisition with
minimum teaching. This approach is consistent with the logic that underlies matrix
training, a strategy frequently used to produce generative language in children with
ASD (see Curiel et al., 2020 for a review). Whether this approach would be more
efficient than standard practice is, at this time, an unanswered empirical question.
Research is needed to determine whether such an instructional sequence would
result in more rapid acquisition of generalized imitation than instructional sequences
based on commonly used skill assessments or curriculums.

Atomic Repertoires

Generalized imitation, while useful for considering the emergence of responding in

novel contexts, may not be sufficient to account for all novel imitative responding.
Palmer (2012) conceptualizes imitation as an atomic repertoire, which includes a
826 M. A. Deshais et al.

range of discriminative stimuli, responses, and types of reinforcement, that depend

on an individual’s learning history. In other words, an atomic repertoire consists of
many small units of behavior (responses), that are evoked under various conditions,
often in combination with other responses, that serve as the building blocks of more
complex responding. This interpretation of imitation as an atomic repertoire may be
useful to practitioners because it suggests that evidence of a strong imitative reper-
toire should not be measured by the number of imitative responses that a child
learns during teaching but by the likelihood of imitative responses across different
conditions. An important distinction lies between generalized imitation and
­demonstrations of adaptive responding in contexts with multiple controlling stimuli,
such as OL, that may rely on an imitative atomic repertoire and other requisite
atomic repertoires (i.e., attending, consequence discrimination; MacDonald &
Ahearn, 2015).
Palmer (2012) also highlights motivating variables as relevant in determining
whether atomic repertoires will be evoked. For example, the response of attending
to an effective model may be more likely in the context of a powerful establishing
operation than in the context of satiation. Given that the majority of imitation
research has been conducted in controlled settings, additional research is needed on
teaching imitation to children with an ASD in ordinary environments that contain
complex arrangements of controlling stimuli (Brown et al., 2008). The conceptual-
ization of imitation as an atomic repertoire does not yet have any empirical support
but it may offer some useful considerations for practitioners teaching imitation to
children with an ASD.

Observational Learning

Another example of a higher order imitative response is OL which is when new

behavior emerges as a function of watching the actions of others and the corre-
sponding consequences (Catania, 2007). What differentiates OL from generalized
imitation is the delay between the model and the observer’s behavior and the role of
the corresponding consequence. OL was first studied by Bandura and colleagues in
the early 1960s as part of a larger discussion of social learning theory. Social learn-
ing theorists and behavior analysts both believe that OL can be studied within their
own disciplines, but explain the mechanisms responsible for OL using different
theoretical frameworks. In their review of OL, Masia and Chase (1997) provide a
thorough examination of the differences between the two perspectives. One of the
main differences focuses on the concept of causation. Social learning theorists pro-
pose a contiguous causation; they suggest that OL occurs because a cognitive repre-
sentation (of the model and corresponding consequence) is created in the mind and
serves to bridge the gap between the modeled response and the observer’s action.
Broadly speaking, behavior analysts propose that OL is a function of environmental
variables and an individual’s learning history. Below we will provide a brief over-
view of how behavior analytic researchers conceptualize OL.
Generalized Imitation and Applied Behavior Analysis 827

MacDonald and Ahearn (2015) defined OL as “differential responding based on

the observed response and its corresponding consequence.” Although this sounds
relatively simple, behavior analysts have proposed that OL likely involves complex
discrimination skills and a reinforcement history for delayed imitation.
Discrimination (i.e., responding differentially to varied stimuli) may be involved in
attending to the model, attending to the stimulus conditions in which the model
occurs, and differentiating between pleasant and unpleasant consequences that fol-
low the modeled response. A reinforcement history for delayed imitation may be
needed for the individual to subsequently exhibit the modeled response in the future.
In addition, direct reinforcement of the response that was learned via observation is
needed for the response to maintain over time. Palmer (2012) proposed that covert
or overt responses to the modeled behavior might be required for OL to occur. For
example, while observing a model, an individual might covertly describe the actions
of a model and the relevant stimuli present to themselves (e.g., “Ok, I see the dancer
twirl when the song gets louder.”). Then later, under similar contexts (i.e., at that
same point in the song), the individual will engage in the modeled response.
Although logically sound, Palmer’s suggestion that overt or covert responses may
facilitate OL remains an untested hypothesis.
Given that OL is a complex skill, it is perhaps not surprising that children diag-
nosed with an ASD may not readily engage in OL without explicit teaching (Varni
et al., 1979). Taylor and DeQuinzo (2012) suggest that OL may require a number of
prerequisite skills such as attending to others’ models, imitation following a delay,
and discriminating between consequences. Studies aimed at establishing OL in chil-
dren with an ASD have primarily focused on skills that could be important prereq-
uisites for OL.
Taylor et  al. (2012) examined whether teaching participants to monitor the
behavior of peers would facilitate OL in three children diagnosed with an ASD. In
the training condition, participants were taught to repeat a word that a peer read
aloud and choose the corresponding word on a matching board. In the exposure
condition, participants were not prompted to repeat the peer’s response or to match
the word. In subsequent probe sessions, participants were able to read more words
from the training condition than the exposure condition. These findings suggest that
explicitly teaching some of the prerequisite skills to OL (attending to models and
imitation) may improve the ability of children with an ASD to learn via observation.
One of other critical prerequisite skills for OL is discriminating between conse-
quences. After an individual observes another person engage in a response and
receive reinforcement, it is likely that if the observer engages in that same response
in the future under similar circumstances, reinforcement will be forthcoming. The
same is true when the corresponding consequence is punishment and not reinforce-
ment. In order to behave effectively, the individual must discriminate between
pleasant and unpleasant consequences and also respond accordingly in the future.
Delgado and Greer (2009) investigated whether OL emerged in participants who
were required to observe peer responses (correct or incorrect). The experimental
condition consisted of a three-stage peer monitoring process that required partici-
pants to choose a block corresponding to the correct or incorrect responses of the
828 M. A. Deshais et al.

confederate. Following the peer monitoring procedure, accuracy ranged from 65 to

100% for one participant across tact and textual responses and 35–80% for the sec-
ond participant. However, it is unclear whether repeated practice during probe ses-
sions or the peer monitoring procedure aided in the emergence of OL.
More recently, DeQuinzio et  al. (2018) examined whether OL emerged when
both known and unknown stimuli were presented to participants. Prior to the study,
all participants demonstrated a generalized imitative repertoire and were taught to
say “I don’t know” when unknown targets were presented. During the study, partici-
pants observed positive feedback trials in which following a correct response, the
peer received reinforcement and negative feedback trials in which following an
incorrect response, the peer received corrective feedback. Results indicated that dis-
crimination training and the presentation of rules (i.e., say “I don’t know” if it was
wrong) helped participants learn to discriminate contingencies (i.e., positive or
negative) following peers’ responses to unknown targets. These findings suggest
that teaching discrimination between contingencies may help to facilitate the acqui-
sition of OL.
MacDonald and Ahearn (2015) extended the literature on OL by developing an
assessment tool to identify deficits in the OL prerequisite skills outlined by Taylor

Preassessment
Conducted OL assessment across 5 tasks

If tasks or task variations completed below

100%, moved to training

Training
Selected 1 deficit task variation to teach

-Trained each skill to 100% independence

-When all skills mastered at 100%, moved
to post-assessment

Trained Trained Trained Trained

Attending to Imitation Delayed Consequence

a model imitation discrimination

Post-assessment
Reassessed OL tasks and task variations

-If task variation at 100%, training

completed
-If task variation below 100%, return to
training

Fig. 1  Summary of procedures from MacDonald and Ahearn (2015)

Generalized Imitation and Applied Behavior Analysis 829

and DeQuinzo (2012). First, the researchers assessed whether six children with an
ASD exhibited OL across five tasks and found that none of the participants demon-
strated OL across all tasks. Figure 1 outlines the procedures used in the study. Next,
the researchers taught participants the prerequisite skills needed for OL: Attending,
imitation, delayed imitation, and consequence discrimination. Following this train-
ing, five out of the six participants exhibited OL following observation of an
untrained task. This study was one of the first to assess OL and then teach the spe-
cific prerequisite skills necessary for OL if they were not present in participants’
repertoires.
Research conducted on OL has spanned many areas of educational and social
development. In a review, Townley-Cochran et al. (2015) outlined studies that have
taught OL as a specific skill as well as studies that have used OL to teach other
skills. Researchers have evaluated OL across a variety of contexts including peers in
one-to-one format (i.e., Egel et  al., 1981; Wacker et  al., 1989), peers in a group
format (i.e, Colozzi et al., 2008), or adults in a one-to-one format (Leaf et al., 2012).
Additionally, OL has been used to teach a variety of adaptive skills (see Table 1 for
a sample). Despite the positive outcomes reported in many OL studies, much
remains unknown about how OL works and the best way to teach OL to children
with an ASD. Townley-Cochran et al. suggest that additional research is needed on
how to facilitate the emergence of OL as a specific skill.
In summary, OL is a complex skill that is best described as a higher order imita-
tive repertoire. It may require a number of prerequisites including complex dis-
crimination skills and delayed imitation. OL can facilitate effective and efficient
learning when observers attend to salient social cues paired with differential conse-
quences. Learning via observation is critical in the social and academic develop-
ment of children with an ASD because many learning opportunities occur in
naturalistic settings. The existing research on OL suggests that OL is a complex
skill that can be taught to individuals with an ASD by teaching attending, imitation,
and discrimination of contingencies across a variety of contexts. Although there is a
growing body of research on OL, there are many additional avenues for future
research. Perhaps the most critical areas for researchers working in the area of ASD

Table 1  Sample of skills taught using observational learning to children with ASD
Skill Reference
Academic Falkenstine et al. (2009)
TASKS
Map reading Gursel et al. (2006)
Play Ozen et al. (2012); Varni et al. (1979)
sequences
Self-help Griffen et al. (1992); Schoen et al. (1988); Schoen and Sivil (1989); Werts et al.
skills (1996)
Sight word Farmer et al. (1991); Keel and Gast (1992); Ledford et al. (2008); Mechling
reading et al. (2007); Orelove (1982); Schoen and Ogden (1995); Shelton et al. (1991)
830 M. A. Deshais et al.

are identifying ways to teach OL, the conditions under which OL can be used as an
effective teaching strategy, and how to best promote generalization of OL across
settings.

Assessing Imitation Skills in Children with an ASD

A comprehensive imitation skills assessment across imitation tasks (i.e., gross

motor, fine motor, object, vocal, etc.) and contexts is critical for developing effective
interventions to teach imitation repertoires to young children with an ASD. Many
assessments that are commonly used in clinical practice with children with an ASD
contain sections for assessing imitation skills. Those sections are frequently struc-
tured in ways that mirror the developmental progression of skills observed in typi-
cally developing children. The Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills
(ABLLS-R; Partington, 2006) is an assessment tool and curriculum guide used with
children diagnosed with an ASD that provides a comprehensive tracking system for
544 skills from 25 areas. Within the ABLLS-R, there are two designated sections for
tracking motor imitation and vocal imitation skills. In an effort to determine the
extent to which a child has a generalized imitative repertoire, the ABLLS-R includes
items across a variety of imitation tasks and features such as: imitation with and
without objects, imitation of static and kinetic responses, imitation in the presence
and absence of a vocal instruction (e.g., “do this”), imitation of facial movements,
imitation of the speed and intensity with which the model is performed, imitation of
a sequence of actions, and delayed imitation. In addition, the vocal imitation section
addresses a child’s imitation of a variety of speech features, including sound pat-
terns, various consonant/vowel combinations, pitch, volume, and speed. Finally, the
ABLLS-R curriculum guide emphasizes assessing how closely a child will imitate
dynamic properties of a model and longer sequences across multiple actions and
simultaneous models as critical for responding to increasingly complex instructions
in group settings.
More recently developed, the Verbal Behavior Milestones and Placement
Program (VB-MAPP; Sundberg, 2014) is a criterion-referenced assessment tool of
150 measurable learning and language milestones across three levels. In the
VB-MAPP, Levels 1 and 2 of the Milestones Assessment both include sections for
imitation skills that progress in complexity. Within those sections, some test items
can be directly assessed by the administrator (e.g., Will the child imitate gross motor
actions when a model and the instruction “do this” are presented?) and some items
are assessed via observation (e.g., Will the child spontaneously imitate the motor
behavior of others in the natural environment?). The Milestones also assesses
whether a generative repertoire is present; one test item asks whether a child will
spontaneously imitate any novel motor action with and without objects without spe-
cific training. Although the Milestones assessment does not address vocal imitation,
Generalized Imitation and Applied Behavior Analysis 831

the VB-MAPP does include a supplementary assessment called the Early Echoic
Skills Assessment (EESA), developed by Dr. Barbara Esch. The EESA is often con-
ducted in conjunction with the Milestones to obtain a comprehensive assessment of
all types of imitative tasks. The EESA assesses echoic responding (i.e., vocal imita-
tion) across five groups of test items. Groups 1–3 assess imitation of simple sylla-
bles and syllable combinations while groups 4–5 assess imitation of speech
emphasis, pitch, loudness, and vowel duration. The VB-MAPP also includes a
Barriers Assessment used to identify 24 learning and language acquisition barriers
that may impede a child’s development. Each item in the Barriers Assessment is
scored on a scale of 0 (no barrier is present) to 4 (major barrier is present), and the
curriculum guide recommends practitioners consider developing interventions for
any barrier scored between 2 and 4. A number of barriers included in the Barriers
Assessment may relate directly to imitative repertoires such as impaired echoic
behavior, impaired imitation, failure to generalize, or attend to a model.
The VB-MAPP and the ABLLS-R each contain sections aimed at assessing imi-
tation skills but they were not exclusively designed to assess imitation skills. The
Motor Imitation Scale (MIS; Stone et al., 1997) is a research tool specifically devel-
oped for use with children with an ASD to assess motor imitation. It contains
16-items to assess imitation with and without objects and responses are that “mean-
ingful” (e.g., push car across table) and “non-meaningful” (e.g., push teacup across
table). Another stand-alone assessment designed specifically to evaluate imitation
skills in this population has recently been developed. Aguirre and Gutierrez (2019)
developed the Motor and Vocal Imitation Assessment (MVIA), an assessment tool
for imitation tasks, and conducted a study to evaluate the utility of the assessment in
participants, with and without ASD, ages 15–48 months. The MVIA includes 32
test items across four imitation tasks: object imitation, body imitation, facial imita-
tion, and vocal imitation tasks. Within a hypothetical hierarchy of imitative tasks,
the authors also incorporated the following cross-features of the imitative tasks:
meaningful/non-meaningful actions and actions that do/do not produce sound in
object imitation; actions visible/not-visible to the individual and actions that do/do
not produce sound in body imitation; actions requiring use of oral-facial muscles
grouped by least to most difficult according to previous research on facial imitation
(i.e., Field et al., 1985; Meltzoff & Moore, 1977, 1983; Rogers et al., 2003; Young
et al., 2011); and actions in a hierarchy following the progression of vocal develop-
ment including vowel sounds, reduplicated two-consonant sounds, non-reduplicated
two-consonant sounds, and common words (Nathani et al., 2006; Piasta & Wagner,
2010). The aforementioned assessments provide practitioners a way to identify
strengths and deficits in their clients’ imitative skills. See Table 2 for an overview of
these assessments. Practitioners can use the results of these assessments to make
informed decisions on what imitative skills to teach children with an ASD during
behavioral therapy.
832 M. A. Deshais et al.

Table 2  Imitation assessments and task types

VB-MAPP ABLLS-R
Imitation task (Imitation sections, Levels 1 (Imitation sections, D
type and 2) and E) MIS MVIA
Gross motor DT and O (7 tasks) IA or O (14 tasks) DT (8 DT (8
tasks) tasks)
Motor with DT and O (7 tasks) IA or O (7 tasks) DT (8 DT (8
objects tasks) tasks)
Facial imitation IA or O (3 tasks) DT (8
tasks)
Fine motor DT (2 tasks) IA or O (1 task)
Vocal DT (5 groups of tasks, IA and O (21 tasks) DT (8
EESA) tasks)
Delayed IA and O (4 tasks)
DT denotes direct testing; O denotes observation; IA denotes indirect assessment; EESA denotes
Early Echoic Skills Assessment

 pproaches for Teaching Imitation to Children with ASD/

A
Teaching Approaches

Depending on the learning history of the child, there are many different approaches
for teaching an imitative repertoire to children with an ASD. Below we have out-
lined three different teaching approaches that have demonstrated success in teach-
ing this imperative skill to this population. We will begin this section with the most
structured teaching approach (discrete trial teaching; DTT) and then describe two
less structured approaches to teaching imitation (natural environment teaching and
reciprocal imitation training).

Discrete Trial Training

As early as the 1960s, DTT has been used to teach specific imitative responses
(Baer et al., 1967; Baer & Sherman, 1964; Brigham & Sherman, 1968; Garcia et al.,
1971; Lovaas et al., 1966, 1967; Metz, 1965). DTT is a highly structured instruc-
tional arrangement that uses repeated trials to teach discrete responses. Each trial
consists of the presentation of antecedent stimuli including a discriminative stimu-
lus (SD) and sometimes a prompt, an opportunity for the child to respond, the deliv-
ery of consequences including reinforcement or error correction, and an intertrial
interval of 5–15  s. As it is recognized today, DTT often occurs with a child and
therapist sitting across from or next to each other at a table, strict antecedent arrange-
ments, the use of social and/or contrived reinforcement, and non-contextual target
responses (e.g., touch head). Applied to teaching gross motor imitation, a discrete
trial proceeds as follows. First, the therapist delivers a vocal instruction “do this”
paired with a model of an action (e.g., clapping). Immediately following the
Generalized Imitation and Applied Behavior Analysis 833

presentation of the SD, the therapist prompts the child to engage in the response
(using physical guidance that is eventually faded out). The child may either imitate
the model (i.e., clapping) or not (e.g., stomping foot). Then, the therapist delivers
the corresponding consequence (i.e., reinforcement or error correction).
By the 1970s, DTT was adopted widely as a teaching strategy for imitative train-
ing in early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) for children with developmen-
tal disabilities (Lovaas, 1977). Research on teaching imitation using DTT has
evaluated procedures for teaching facial imitation, gross motor imitation, fine motor
imitation, imitation with objects, chaining imitation sequences, and vocal imitation
of phonemes, words, or phrases (e.g., DeQuinzio et al., 2007; Lovaas, 1981, 1987,
2003; Lovaas et al., 1966, 1967; Maurice et al., 1996; Young et al., 1994). At pres-
ent, studies that demonstrate that DTT is an effective way to teach imitation to
children with ASD span almost 5 decades. In addition, research indicates that thera-
pists, paraprofessionals, and caregivers can be taught to implement DTT with rela-
tively minimal training (e.g., Sarokoff & Sturmey, 2004).
Although there is a strong body of empirical evidence supporting the use of DTT
to teach imitation skills to children with an ASD, there are some notable limitations
of this approach for teaching imitation (as well as other skills) including limited
generalization and maintenance, restricted stimulus control, and control of respond-
ing by contrived consequences (Charlop-Christy et al., 1999; Fenske et al., 2001;
Ingersoll & Schreibman, 2009; Koegel & Koegel, 1995; Koegel et al., 2008; Spradlin
& Siegel, 1982). Lovaas and Smith (2003) describe early intervention DTT out-
comes as follows: “gains tended to be situation-specific; despite improving with
therapists in clinical settings, children’s behavior often remained unchanged with
caregivers in everyday settings such as home or school” (p. 327). One possible rea-
son for the lack of generalization that is sometimes observed when a skill is taught
using DTT, is that DTT represents a highly controlled context in which stimulus
conditions do not vary much from one teaching session to the next. Conversely,
stimulus conditions in a natural environment are often more dynamic and inconsis-
tent. The differences between the DTT environment and the natural environment
may lead to skills failing to transfer. Therefore, particular consideration should be
given to planning and monitoring for generalization and maintenance during DTT
(Eikeseth et al., 2014).

Naturalistic Teaching

The limitations of DTT prompted the development of other behavioral approaches

for teaching new skills, like imitation, including incidental teaching (Hart & Risley,
1975), natural language paradigm (NLP; Koegel et al., 1987), and pivotal response
training (PRT; Koegel et al., 2008; Koegel et al., 2010; Koegel et al., 1989). These
“naturalistic teaching strategies” aim to teach children with an ASD effectively and
efficiently, with a focus on facilitating generalization and natural reinforcer control
(Charlop-Christy et al., 1999; LeBlanc et al., 2006). Naturalistic teaching strategies
834 M. A. Deshais et al.

commonly include (1) incorporating multiple exemplars (Eikeseth et  al., 2014;
LeBlanc et al., 2006; Stokes & Baer, 1977), (2) training loosely (Stokes & Baer,
1977), (3) following a child’s lead (Charlop-Christy et  al., 1999; Koegel et  al.,
1987), (4) using natural reinforcers (e.g., praise and access to toys; Charlop-Christy
et al., 1999; Stokes & Baer, 1977), (5) embedding intervention in natural or unstruc-
tured settings (Charlop-Christy et  al., 1999; Hart & Risley, 1975; Koegel et  al.,
1987; LeBlanc et al., 2006; Spradlin & Siegel, 1982), (6) interspersing maintenance
trials (Charlop-Christy et al., 1999), and (7) using intermittent schedules of rein-
forcement (Charlop-Christy et  al., 1999; Stokes & Baer, 1977). Some potential
advantages of naturalistic teaching methods for teaching imitation skills are that
they might prevent the development of restricted stimulus control, increase the like-
lihood of generalization, and instructional sessions may be less likely than DTT to
evoke escape-maintained problem behavior (Koegel et al., 2008, 2010). Although
research suggests that naturalistic teaching approaches may be effective at increas-
ing imitative behavior in children with ASD (Charlop-Christy et al., 1999; Koegel
et  al., 1987), there are fewer well-controlled empirical studies demonstrating its
effectiveness relative to the substantial evidence base demonstrating the effective-
ness of DTT. In addition, effective implementation of naturalistic teaching methods
may require more skill and expertise on the part of the therapist than DTT.  For
example, naturalistic teaching methods require therapists to contrive or detect an
appropriate moment to present teaching opportunities in the course of play, whereas
in DTT, antecedent presentation is programmed systematically.

Reciprocal Imitation Training

Although extensive research has identified effective procedures for teaching a gen-
eralized imitation repertoire under specific stimulus control (i.e., “do this”, unre-
lated consequences), comparable empirically-derived procedures for bringing
imitation under natural antecedent and consequence control are lacking. Perhaps in
response to the previously noted limitations of DTT, reciprocal imitation training
(RIT), a naturalistic teaching strategy using a developmental approach to teach imi-
tation, was developed in the early 2000s (e.g., Ingersoll, 2014; Ingersoll &
Schreibman, 2006; Ingersoll & Gergans, 2007). RIT is a treatment package that
incorporates caregiver-delivered instruction, contingent imitation (CI; i.e., thera-
pist/caregiver imitation of the child’s behavior), linguistic mapping (e.g., the care-
giver describes what the child is attending to and/or doing using simplified language
or sound effects), and imitation training (e.g., modeling, prompting, and reinforcing
a child’s imitative behaviors; Ingersoll & Gergans, 2007). According to Ingersoll
and Schreibman (2009), a structured behavior approach (i.e., DTT) may establish
only a limited imitative repertoire, whereas a developmental approach that incorpo-
rates naturally occurring social contexts may facilitate acquisition of more complex
imitative and social skills. Imitation is the primary skill targeted by RIT, however
Generalized Imitation and Applied Behavior Analysis 835

many studies on RIT have also measured changes in other skills such as language,
play, and joint attention (Ingersoll & Schreibman, 2006; Whalen et al., 2006).
A distinguishing component of RIT is the inclusion of CI, contingent imitation
or contingent interactions, which Klinger and Dawson (1992) defined as “simulta-
neous and exact imitations of the child’s actions, body movements, and vocaliza-
tions” (p.169). For example, when a child taps a stick on a table and says, “ba”, the
adult will tap a stick on the same table in close proximity and say in the same into-
nation, “ba.” This procedure is distinguished from contingent responding, in which
a caregiver or therapist responds contingently and immediately to any response by
the child with a non-imitative response (Escalona et al., 2002). For example, when
a child shakes a maraca and says “oo,” the adult may respond by clapping her hands
and say “ah.” Reported effects of CI include increases in imitation, eye contact,
vocalizations, and joint attention (Field, 2017; Field et  al., 2001, 2010, 2013;
Ingersoll & Schreibman, 2006; Peláez et al., 2011). Much like PRT and NLP, parent
training is important for caregiver implementation of CI and RIT, but research on
parent training for these procedures, the social validity of CI and RIT, and the main-
tenance and generalization of CI and RIT treatment effects is lacking. Because the
RIT and CI research has not yet been systematically reviewed, it is unclear what
conclusions can be drawn from these studies, how practitioners can use this infor-
mation, and what research questions remain. Further empirical replications and
component analyses of naturalistic strategies are needed.

Research on Teaching Strategies and Procedures

Research studies aimed at identifying effective strategies and procedures for teach-
ing imitation to children with an ASD have been published across a number of
journals and disciplines. Ledford and Wolery (2011) synthesized the findings of
research conducted between 1965 and 2007 that evaluated strategies for teaching
imitation to participants with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The
authors found reinforcement and prompting to be the most common independent
variables and categorized all studies included in the review by intervention type:
DTT with peer models, DTT with adult model, play-based, and classroom-based.
The authors designated studies with positive outcomes (identified by conservative
visual analysis) and at least three replications of effect across or within participants,
as “successes.” Results suggest that the “success” rate for participants diagnosed
with ID was 100% across play- and classroom-based interventions. The success
rates for participants with an ASD was more variable across intervention types: 50%
for DTT with an adult model, 100% for DTT with a peer model, 88% with play-­
based interventions, and 40% for classroom-based interventions. Limited conclu-
sions could be made about the generalization and maintenance outcomes, either
because generalization and maintenance were not reported or because of the varia-
tion in how these outcomes were measured. Ultimately, Ledford and Wolery (2011)
identified a number of gaps in the imitation training literature. First, they found that
836 M. A. Deshais et al.

there are few evidence-based guidelines for instructional procedures (SD presenta-
tion, types of prompts, and prompt fading) for imitation training. Second, their
review of the literature revealed that there are no evidence-based recommendations
about how to best sequence target responses during imitation training. Finally,
Ledford and Wolery found that research on intervention types, the essential compo-
nents of effective imitation interventions, and ways to promote and measure main-
tenance and generalization is lacking. Given these gaps in the literature, the authors
called for additional research on imitation training so that evidence-based guide-
lines for imitation training can be established. To date, the existing research aimed
at identifying effective strategies for teaching imitation to children with an ASD has
primarily focused on antecedent presentation and target selection. We will provide
a brief overview of some of that research below.

Antecedent Presentation

A number of recent studies have evaluated variations in antecedent presentation

during imitation training for children with an ASD.  Valentino et  al. (2018) con-
ducted a study with two children diagnosed with an ASD who were unable to imi-
tate actions without objects. The study included a pre-assessment and a treatment
evaluation to evaluate the validity of the assessment findings. The pre-assessment
was designed to determine whether the participants had specific deficits in attending
or delayed imitation that impacted their acquisition of imitative responses. Results
indicated that one participant demonstrated deficits in attending (i.e., looking at the
therapist’s model) and the other participant demonstrated deficits in delayed imita-
tion (i.e., when there is a delay between the model and the child’s opportunity to
respond). The researchers developed two treatment conditions, each designed to
address specific deficits in attending or delayed imitation. Those conditions (along
with a control condition) were tested in a treatment comparison. In the “salient
stimulus” condition designed to remediate attending deficits, the therapist modeled
the target action (e.g., raising arms up) using only their body. If the participant did
not respond, the therapist re-presented the target action using a salient object (e.g.,
raising arms up with pom poms). In the “second prompter” condition designed to
address deficits in delayed imitation, a second therapist delivered physical prompts
from behind the participant. This arrangement eliminated the delay between the
model and the prompt (i.e., the second therapist provided the prompt while the pri-
mary therapist modeled the target action). Results from the treatment comparison
suggested that the second prompter condition produced faster acquisition for the
participant who struggled with delayed imitation and the salient stimulus condition
produced acquisition for the participant with attending deficits (although differ-
ences in acquisition across the conditions were minimal for that participant).
Additional research on the predictive value of pre-assessments for practitioners
developing individualized interventions for imitation skills would be beneficial.
Generalized Imitation and Applied Behavior Analysis 837

The findings of Valentino et al. (2018) were extended by Deshais et al. (2020) by
clarifying the contributions of a second prompter and the elimination of a delay
between the model and prompt when using a two-person imitation training arrange-
ment. Three participants with an ASD who exhibited low to zero levels of imitative
behavior participated. The researchers compared participant acquisition of gross
motor imitation targets using a multi-element design across three conditions: a one-­
therapist delayed prompt condition, a two-therapist concurrent prompt condition,
and a two-therapist delayed prompt condition. The one-therapist delayed prompt
condition resembled the typical instructional arrangement during imitation DTT; a
single therapist briefly modeled the target action and then stopped presenting the
model in order to prompt the participant. The two-therapist concurrent prompt con-
dition was similar to the second prompter condition in the Valentino et al. study.
That is, a second therapist provided all prompts from behind the participant and the
delay between the model and the prompt was eliminated (i.e., the model and prompt
were presented concurrently). In the two-therapist delayed condition, a second ther-
apist provided prompts from behind but the model was not present during the
prompt (a delay was inserted). The purpose of this condition was to evaluate the
effects of a second prompter without a concurrent model. Results were mixed across
participants and differentiated acquisition was observed in three of six sets of target
models. Notably, the condition that most closely resembled a typical instructional
arrangement (i.e., one-therapist delayed prompt condition) was the most efficient
condition only 17% of the time and one participant failed to acquire both target
responses assigned to that condition. That participant eventually acquired those tar-
get responses shortly after they were switched to the two-therapist concurrent
prompt condition. These findings suggest that two-therapist imitation training
arrangements may offer some advantages over one-therapist arrangements when
children with ASD are having difficulty acquiring imitative responses.
Additional existing research on variations of antecedent presentation during
DTT imitation training includes the use of peer models (Ihrig & Wolchik, 1988),
video presentations (e.g., Cardon, 2012; Cardon & Azuma, 2012; McDowell et al.,
2015), a rapid motor imitation sequence (e.g., Ross & Greer, 2003), a training pack-
age consisting of differential reinforcement with tokens, modeling, prompting, and
error correction (e.g., DeQuinzio et al., 2007), and mirror training (e.g., Du & Greer,
2014; Miller et al., 2015).

Target Selection

As Ledford and Wolery (2011) noted in their review, empirically based guidelines
for target selection and sequencing during imitation training with children with
ID/D do not yet exist. Without research-based guidelines for selecting and ordering
imitative target responses, many practitioners may rely on outlines or recommended
sequences for target selection found in published curriculum guides for children
with an ASD (Lovaas, 1977, 1981, 2003; Maurice et al., 1996; Partington, 2006;
838 M. A. Deshais et al.

Sundberg, 2014). Although many of these published sequences are logically sound
or based on recommendations of prominent developmental psychologists (i.e.,
Albert Bandura and Jean Piaget), they have not been experimentally evaluated or
validated.
To date, empirical evidence to guide the selection and sequencing of imitation
targets is limited to a few studies. There is preliminary evidence that children may
learn some types of movements faster than others. Erjavec and Horne (2008) found
that typically developing toddlers are more likely to imitate familiar actions (those
from common nursery rhyme games) than unfamiliar actions during unreinforced
probe trials. Camωes-Costa et al. (2011) found that teaching typically developing
3-year-old children to name body parts resulted in an increase in correct imitative
responding. It should be noted, however that both of those studies were conducted
with typically developing children and it is unclear whether those findings would
extend to children with ASD. Deshais and Vollmer (2020) found that some children
with an ASD were more likely to rapidly acquire repetitive object movements rela-
tive to fixed object movements. Finally, there is some evidence that children with an
ASD are more likely to imitate actions with objects compared to actions without
objects (Stone et  al., 1997). One potential reason for this may be that the object
serves as a SD for the target response and the presence of the object throughout the
entire trial may facilitate imitative responding. However, an object imitation
response should (ideally) be under stimulus control of both the object and the thera-
pist’s model, not only the object. When a target response comes under the exclusive
control of the object, it may prove difficult to teach a second action with the object
to ensure at least partial stimulus control by the model. One sure sign that this has
occurred is when the child picks up the object and performs the target action before
the therapist has presented the model. Thus, for children with an ASD, teaching
object imitation before motor imitation might more quickly facilitate imitative
responding than the inverse; however, practitioners should be aware of the possibil-
ity of inappropriate stimulus control developing during object imitation training. To
prevent the development of exclusive control by the object, practitioners may want
to teach multiple actions with each object simultaneously.

Conclusions

A generalized imitative repertoire allows children to behave effectively in situations

ranging from the therapist presentation of a simple model prompt to complex social
situations that contain multiple controlling stimuli. The acquisition of such a reper-
toire has the potential to change the trajectory of a child’s learning and develop-
ment. Therefore, the establishment of imitative behavior is critically important and
should be a priority for practitioners working with young children with an ASD, a
population with well-documented deficits in imitation. Although the findings of pre-
vious research have helped to shape the way that behavior analysts address these
deficits in clinical practice, there are considerable gaps in this area. Considerably
Generalized Imitation and Applied Behavior Analysis 839

more research on the best ways to establish generalized imitation and OL in chil-
dren with an ASD is needed. In addition, further research on the best approaches,
procedures, and instructional sequences for teaching imitation to children with an
ASD would be beneficial. Although behavior analysts have demonstrated success at
establishing imitative responding in this population, additional research is needed to
expand the number of evidence-based practices that exist to teach this critically
important skill.

References

Aguirre, E.  E., & Gutierrez, A. (2019). An assessment and instructional guide for motor and
vocal imitation. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49, 2545–2558. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10803-­019-­04008-­x
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2004). Caring for your baby and young child: Birth to age five. .
Andreou, M., & Skrimpa, V. (2020). Theory of mind deficits and neurophysiological operations in
autism spectrum disorders: A review. Brain Sciences, 10, 393.
Baer, D. M., Peterson, R. F., & Sherman, J. A. (1967). The development of imitation by reinforc-
ing behavioral similarity to a model. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10,
405–416. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1967.10-­405
Baer, D. M., & Deguchi, H. (1985). Generalized imitation from a radical-behavioral viewpoint.
Theoretical Issues in Behavior Therapy, 179–217.
Baer, D.  M., & Sherman, J.  A. (1964). Reinforcement control of generalized imitation
in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1, 37–49. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0022-­0965(64)90005-­0
Brigham, T., & Sherman, J. (1968). An experimental analysis of verbal imitation in preschool
children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1901/
jaba.1968.1-­151
Brown, J. L., Krantz, P. J., McClannahan, L. E., & Poulson, C. L. (2008). Using script fading
to promote natural environment stimulus control of verbal interactions among youths with
autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2(3), 480–497.
Camωes-Costa, V., Erjavec, M., & Horne, P. J. (2011). The impact of body-part-naming training on
the accuracy of imitative performances in 2-to 3-year-old children. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 96(3), 291–315. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2011.96-­291
Cardon, T.  A. (2012). Teaching caregivers to implement video modeling imitation training via
iPad for their children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6(4), 1389–1400.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2012.06.002
Cardon, T., & Azuma, T. (2012). Visual attending preferences in children with autism spectrum
disorders: A comparison between live and video presentation modes. Research in Autism
Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1061–1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2012.01.007
Catania, A. C. (2007). Learning interim (4th ed.). Sloan Publishing.
Chetcuti, L., Hudry, K., Grant, M., & Vivanti, G. (2019). Object-directed imitation in autism spec-
trum disorder is differentially influenced by motoric task complexity, but not social contextual
cues. Autism, 23(1), 199–211.
Chevallier, C., Kohls, G., Troiani, V., Brodkin, E. S., & Schultz, R. T. (2012). The social motiva-
tion theory of autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tics.2012.02.007
Charlop-Christy, M. H., LeBlanc, L. A., & Carpenter, M. H. (1999). Naturalistic teaching strate-
gies (NATS) to teach speech to children with autism: Historical perspective, development,
840 M. A. Deshais et al.

and current practice. The California School Psychologist, 4, 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/

BF03340868
Colozzi, G.  A., Ward, L.  W., & Crotty, K.  E. (2008). Comparison of simultaneous prompting
procedure in 1:1 and small group instruction to teach play skills to preschool students with
pervasive developmental disorder and developmental disabilities. Education and Training in
Developmental Disabilities, 43, 226–248.
Curiel, E. S., Axe, J. B., Sainato, D. M., & Goldstein, H. (2020). Systematic review of matrix train-
ing for individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities, 35(1), 55–64.
Delgado, J. A. P., & Greer, R. D. (2009). The effects of peer monitoring training on the emergence
of the capability to learn from observing instruction received by peers. The Psychological
Record, 59, 407–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395672
Deshais, M. A., Phillips, C. L., Wiskow, K. M., Vollmer, T. R., & Donaldson, J. M. (2020). A com-
parison of imitation training using concurrent versus delayed prompting. Behavior Analysis:
Research and Practice, 20(3), 132.
Deshais, M. A., & Vollmer, T. R. (2020). A preliminary investigation of fixed and repetitive models
during object imitation training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53(2), 973–996.
DeQuinzio, J. A., Taylor, B. A., & Tomasi, B. J. (2018). Observational learning and children with
autism: Discrimination training of known and unknown stimuli. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 51(4), 802–818. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.481
DeQuinzio, J. A., Townsend, D. B., Sturmey, P., & Poulson, C. L. (2007). Generalized imitation
of facial models by children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 755–759.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2007.755-­799
Du, L., & Greer, R. D. (2014). Validation of adult generalized imitation topographies and the emer-
gence of generalized imitation in young children with autism as a function of mirror training.
The Psychological Record, 64, 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-­014-­0050-­y
Egel, A.  L., Richman, G.  S., & Koegel, R.  L. (1981). Normal peer models and autistic chil-
dren’s learning. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1901/
jaba.1981.14-­3
Eikeseth, S., Smith, D. P., & Klintwall, L. (2014). Discrete trial teaching and discrimination train-
ing. In J. Tarbox, D. R. Dixon, P. Sturmey, & J. L. Matson (Eds.), Autism and child psycho-
pathology series. Handbook of early intervention for autism spectrum disorders: Research,
policy, and practice (pp. 293–324). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­1-­4939-­0401-­3_12
Erjavec, M., & Horne, P. J. (2008). Determinants of imitation of hand-to-body gestures in 2-and
3-year-old children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 89(2), 183–207. https://
doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2008.89-­183
Escalona, A., Field, T. M., Nadel, J., & Lundy, B. (2002). Brief report: Imitation effects on children
with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32, 141–144. https://doi.org/1
0.1023/a:1014896707002
Falkenstine, K. J., Collins, B. C., Schuster, J. W., & Kleinert, H. (2009). Presenting chained and
discrete tasks as non-targeted information when teaching discrete academic skills through
small group instruction. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 127–142.
Farmer, J. A., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Winterling, V. (1991). Small group instruction for stu-
dents with severe handicaps: A study of observational learning. Education and Training in
Mental Retardation, 26, 190–201.
Fenske, E. C., Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (2001). Incidental teaching: A not-discrete-­
trial teaching procedure. In C. Maurice, G. Green, & R. M. Foxx (Eds.), Making a difference:
Behavioral intervention for autism (pp. 75–82). PRO-ED.
Field, T. (2017). Imitation enhances social behavior of children with autism spectrum disorder:
A review. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 22, 86–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/bdb0000042
Field, T., Ezell, S., Nadel, J., Grace, A., Allender, S., & Siddalingappa, V. (2013). Reciprocal imi-
tation following adult imitation by children with autism. Infant and Child Development, 22,
642–648. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1812
Generalized Imitation and Applied Behavior Analysis 841

Field, T., Field, T., Sanders, C., & Nadel, J. (2001). Children with autism display more
social behaviors after repeated imitation sessions. Autism, 5, 317–323. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1362361301005003008
Field, T., Guy, L., & Umbel, V. (1985). Infants’ responses to mothers’ imitative behaviors. Infant
Mental Health Journal, 6, 40–44.
Field, T., Nadel, J., Diego, M., Hernandez-Reif, M., Russo, K., Vchulek, D., Lendi, K., …
Siddalingappa, V. (2010). Children with autism are more imitative with an imitative adult
than with their parents. Early Child Development and Care, 180, 513–518. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03004430802090570
Garcia, E., Baer, D. M., & Firestone, I. (1971). The development of generalized imitation within
topographically determined boundaries. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4, 101–112.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1971.4-­101
Gewirtz, J. L., & Stingle, K. G. (1968). Learning of generalized imitation as the basis for identifi-
cation. Psychological Review, 75, 374–397. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026378
Griffen, A. K., Wolery, M., & Schuster, J. W. (1992). Triadic instruction of chained food prepara-
tion responses: Acquisition and observational learning. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
25, 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1992.25-­193
Gregory, M. K., DeLeon, I. G., & Richman, D. M. (2009). The influence of matching and motor-­
imitation abilities on rapid acquisition of manual signs and exchange-based communicative
responses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(2), 399–404. https://doi.org/10.1901/
jaba.2009.42-­399
Gursel, O., Tekin-Iftar, E., & Bozkurt, F. (2006). Effectiveness of simultaneous prompting in
small groups: The opportunity of acquiring non-target skills through observational learning
and instructive feedback. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 225–243.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23880197
Hart, B., & Risley, T.  R. (1975). Incidental teaching of language in the preschool. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 411–420. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1975.8-­411
Ihrig, K., & Wolchik, S.  A. (1988). Peer versus adult models and autistic children’s learning:
Acquisition, generalization, and maintenance. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
18(1), 67–79.
Ingersoll, B. (2014). Reciprocal imitation training. Retrieved April 3, 2018, from https://ieccwa.
org/uploads/IECC2014/HANDOUTS/KEY_2720064/RITManual.pdf.
Ingersoll, B., & Gergans, S. (2007). The effect of a parent- implemented imitation intervention
on spontaneous imitation skills in young children with autism. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 28, 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2006.02.004
Ingersoll, B., & Schreibman, L. (2006). Teaching reciprocal imitation skills to young children
with autism using a naturalistic behavioral approach: Effects on language, pretend play, and
joint attention. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, 487–505. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10803-­006-­0089-­y
Ingersoll, B., & Schreibman, L. (2009). Reciprocal imitation training: A naturalistic behavioral
approach to teaching imitation to young children with autism. In P.  Reed (Ed.), Behavioral
theories and interventions for autism (pp. 47–65). Nova Science Publishers.
Keel, M. C., & Gast, D. L. (1992). Small group instruction for student with learning disabilities:
Observational and incidental learning. Exceptional Children, 58, 357–368.
Klinger, L. G., & Dawson, G. (1992). Facilitating early social and communicative development in
children with autism. In S. F. Warren & J. E. Reichle (Eds.), Causes and effects in communica-
tion and language intervention (Vol. 5, pp. 157–186). Brookes Publishing.
Koegel, R. L., & Koegel, L. K. (Eds.). (1995). Teaching children with autism: Strategies for initiat-
ing positive interactions and improving learning opportunities. Paul H Brookes Publishing.
Koegel, L.  K., Koegel, R.  L., Fredeen, R.  M., & Gengoux, G.  W. (2008). Naturalistic behav-
ioral approaches to treatment. In K. Chawarska, A. Klin, & F. R. Volkmar (Eds.), Autism spec-
trum disorders in infants and toddlers: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment (pp. 207–242).
Guilford Publications.
842 M. A. Deshais et al.

Koegel, R. L., Koegel, L. K., Vernon, T. W., & Brookman-Frazee, L. I. (2010). Empirically sup-
ported pivotal response treatment for children with autism spectrum disorders. In J. Weisz &
A. Kazdin (Eds.), Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents (pp. 327–344).
Guilford Press.
Koegel, R. L., O’Dell, M. C., & Koegel, L. K. (1987). A Natural language teaching paradigm for
nonverbal autistic children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 17, 187–200.
Koegel, R. L., Schreibman, L., Good, A., Cerniglia, L., Murphy, C., & Koegel, L. (1989). How to
teach pivotal behaviors to children with autism: A training manual. University of California.
Leaf, J. B., Oppenheim-Leaf, M. L., Leaf, R., Courtemanche, A. B., Taubman, M., McEachin, J.,
Sheldon, J. B., & Sherman, J. A. (2012). Observational effects on the preferences of children
with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45(3), 473–483. https://doi.org/10.1901/
jaba.2012.45-­473
LeBlanc, L.  A., Esch, J., Sidener, T.  M., & Firth, A.  M. (2006). Behavioral language interven-
tions for children with autism: Comparing applied verbal behavior and naturalistic teaching
approaches. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 22, 49–60.
Ledford, J. R., Gast, D. L., Luscre, D., & Ayres, K. (2008). Observational and incidental learning
by children with autism during small group instruction. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 38, 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-­007-­0363-­7
Ledford, J.  R., & Wolery, M. (2011). Teaching imitation to young children with disabilities: A
review of the literature. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 30, 245–255. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0271121410363831
Lovaas, O. I. (1977). The autistic child: Language development through behavior modification.
Irvington.
Lovaas, O. I. (1981). Teaching developmentally disabled children: The ME book. PRO-ED.
Lovaas, O. I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in
young autistic children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 3–9. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-­006X.55.1.3
Lovaas, O.  I. (2003). Teaching individuals with developmental delays: Basic intervention tech-
niques. Pro-Ed.
Lovaas, O.  I., Berberich, J.  P., Perloff, B.  F., & Schaeffer, B. (1966). Acquisition of imitative
speech by schizophrenic children. Science, 151, 705–707.
Lovaas, O. I., Freitas, L., Nelson, K., & Whalen, C. (1967). The establishment of imitation and its
use for the development of complex behavior in schizophrenic children. Behaviour Research
and Therapy, 5(3), 171–181.
Lovaas, O.  I., & Smith, T. (2003). Early and intensive behavioral intervention in autism. In
A. E. Kazdin & J. R. Weisz (Eds.), Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adoles-
cents (pp. 325–340). The Guilford Press.
MacDonald, J.  M., & Ahearn, W.  A. (2015). Teaching observational learning to children with
autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48(4), 800–816.
Masia, C. L., & Chase, P. N. (1997). Vicarious learning revisited: A contemporary behavior ana-
lytic interpretation. Journal Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 28(1), 41–51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-­7916(96)00042-­0
Maurice, C., Green, G., & Luce, S. C. (Eds.). (1996). Behavioral intervention for young children
with autism: A manual for parents and professionals. PRO-ED.
McDowell, L. S., Gutierrez, A., & Bennett, K. D. (2015). Analysis of live modeling plus prompting
and video modeling for teaching imitation to children with autism. Behavioral Interventions,
30, 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1419
Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Krupa, K. (2007). Impact of SMART board technology: An investi-
gation of sight word reading and observational learning. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 37, 1869–1882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-­007-­0361-­9
Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1977). Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neo-
nates. Science, 198, 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.198.4312.75
Generalized Imitation and Applied Behavior Analysis 843

Meltzoff, A.  N., & Moore, M.  K. (1983). Newborn infants imitate adult facial gestures. Child
Development, 54, 702–709. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130058
Metz, R. J. (1965). Conditioning generalized imitation in autistic children. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 2(4), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-­0965(65)90023-­8
Miller, S.  A., Rodriguez, N.  M., & Rourke, A.  J. (2015). Do mirrors facilitate acquisition of
motor imitation in children diagnosed with autism? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48,
194–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.187
Nathani, S., Ertmer, D. J., & Stark, R. E. (2006). Assessing vocal development in infants and toddlers.
Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 20(5), 351–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200500211451
Orelove, F. P. (1982). Acquisition of incidental learning in moderately and severely handicapped
adults. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 17, 131–136.
Ozen, A., Batu, S., & Birkan, B. (2012). Teaching play skills to children with autism through
video modeling: Small group arrangement and observational learning. Education and Training
in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 84–96. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23880564
Palmer, D. (2012). The role of atomic repertoires in complex behavior. The Behavior Analyst,
35(1), 59–73.
Partington, J.  W. (2006). The assessment of basic language and learning skills—Revised (The
ABLLS-R). Behavior Analysts.
Peláez, M., Virues-Ortega, J., & Gewirtz, J.  L. (2011). Reinforcement of vocalizations through
contingent vocal imitation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 33–40. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-­33
Peterson, R. F. (1968). Imitation: A basic behavioral mechanism. Operant procedures in remedial
speech and language training, 53–77.
Piasta, S.  B., & Wagner, R.  K. (2010). Developing early literacy skills: A meta-analysis of
alphabet learning and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 8–38. https://doi.
org/10.1044/1092-­4388
Poulson, C. L., Kyparissos, N., Andreatos, M., Kymissis, E., & Parnes, M. (2002). Generalized
imitation within three response classes in typically developing infants. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 81(3), 341–357.
Rogers, S. J., Hepburn, S. L., Stackhouse, T., & Wehner, E. (2003). Imitation performance in tod-
dlers with autism and those with other developmental disorders. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 44(5), 763–781.
Rogers, S.  J., & Williams, J.  H. G. (2006). Imitation and the Social Mind: Autism and Typical
Development. Guilford Press.
Rosales-Ruiz, J., & Baer, D. M. (1997). Behavioral cusps: A developmental and pragmatic concept
for behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 533–544.
Ross, D. E., & Greer, D. E. (2003). Generalized imitation and the mand: Inducing first instances
of speech in young children with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24, 58–74.
Sallows, G. O., & Graupner, T. D. (2005). Intensive behavioral treatment for children with autism:
Four-year outcome and predictors. American Journal of Mental Retardation: AJMR, 110(6),
417–438. https://doi.org/10.1352/0895-­8017(2005)110[417:IBTFCW]2.0.CO;2
Sarokoff, R. A., & Sturmey, P. (2004). The effects of behavioral skills training on staff implemen-
tation of discrete-trial teaching. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 535–538.
Schoen, S. F., Lentz, F. E., Jr., & Suppa, R. J. (1988). An examination of two prompt fading pro-
cedures and opportunities to observe in teaching handicapped preschoolers self-help skills.
Journal of the Division for Early Childhood, 12, 349–358.
Schoen, S. F., & Ogden, S. (1995). Impact of time delay, observational learning, and attentional
cueing upon word recognition during integrated small-group instruction. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 25, 503–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02178297
Schoen, S.  F., & Sivil, S.  O. (1989). A comparison of procedures in teaching self-help skills:
Increasing assistance, time delay, and observational learning. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 19, 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02178297
 844 M. A. Deshais et al.

Shelton, B. S., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Winterling, V. (1991). The role of small group instruction
in facilitating observational and incidental learning. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
in Schools, 22, 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-­1461.2203.123
Spradlin, J. E., & Siegel, G. M. (1982). Language training in natural and clinical environments.
Journal of Speech & Hearing Disorders, 47, 2–6. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.4701.02
Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1977.10-­349
Stone, W. L., Ousley, O. Y., & Littleford, C. D. (1997). Motor imitation in young children with
autism: What’s the object? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25, 475–485.
Sundberg, M. L. (2014). The verbal behavior milestones assessment and placement program: The
VB-MAPP (2nd ed.). AVB Press.
Taylor, B.  A., & DeQuinzo, J.  A. (2012). Observational learning and children with autism.
Behavior Modification, 36(3), 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445512443981
Taylor, B. A., DeQuinzo, J. A., & Stine, J. (2012). Increasing observational learning of children
with autism: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45(4), 815–820.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2012.45-­815
Townley-Cochran, D., Leaf, J. B., Taubman, M., Leaf, R., McEachin, J., & Foundation, A. P. (2015).
Observational learning for students with autism: A review paper. Review Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 2, 262–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-­015-­0050-­0
Valentino, A.  L., LeBlanc, L.  A., & Conde, K.  A. (2018). Validation of a skills assessment to
match interventions to teach motor imitation to children with autism. Learning and Motivation,
62, 67–76.
Varni, J. W., Lovaas, O. I., Koegel, R. L., & Everett, N. L. (1979). An analysis of observational
learning in autistic and normal children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 7(1), 31–43.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00924508
Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Choisser, L., & Smith, J. (1989). Evaluation of the generalized effects
of a peer-training procedure with moderately retarded adolescents. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 22(3), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1989.22-­261
Werts, M.  G., Caldwell, N.  K., & Wolery, M. (1996). Peer modeling of response chains:
Observational learning by students with disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29,
53–66. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-­53
Whalen, C., Schreibman, L., & Ingersoll, B. (2006). The collateral effects of joint attention train-
ing on social initiations, positive affect, imitation, and spontaneous speech for young chil-
dren with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, 655–664. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10803-­006-­0108-­z
Williams, J.  H. G., Whiten, A., & Singh, T. (2004). A systematic review of action imitation in
autistic spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(3), 285–299.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JADD.0000029551.56735.3a
Young, J. M., Krantz, P. J., McClannahan, L. E., & Poulson, C. L. (1994). Generalized imitation
and response-class formation in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
27, 685–697. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-­685
Young, G. S., Rogers, S. J., Hutman, T., Rozga, A., Sigman, M., & Ozonoff, S. (2011). Imitation
from 12 to 24 months in autism and typical development: A longitudinal Rasch analysis.
Developmental Psychology, 47, 1565–1578. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025418

View publication stats