Running Header: Manding: Communicating Effectively

Manding: Communicating Efficiently

José A. Vargas

Nova Southeastern University

ABA 750 Professional Issues in ABA

Dr. Emmy Maurilus

 Manding: Communicating Effectively

Manding: Communicating Effectively

If a person wants something, he or she simply asks for that item. What happens when an

individual cannot communicate wants or needs? Problem behaviors can occur in children and

adults when they have a limited ability to request preferred items. There are many ways an

individual can communicate what it is he or she wants or needs, including sign language, picture

exchange, and programs on computers. A mand is a verbal response that is controlled by an

establishing operation (Cooper, Heron, & Howard, 2007). Mands can be used to request many

different things. These things can be food, information, help, and even items.

For early language learners, mands are important. If an individual does not develop how

to request preferred items or express feelings, negative behaviors may occur. These can be

tantrums, forms of aggression, self-injurious behaviors, and social withdrawal (Cooper, Heron, &

Howard, 2007). If a child or adult is non-verbal, mand training becomes essential. This will

allow the individual to appropriately communicate with others.

Throughout the different research, it is important to look at the internal, external, and

social validity. Internal validity refers to how well an experiment is done to avoid confounding,

or multiple independent variables that act at the same time (Cooper, Heron, & Howard, 2007). If

a study has a less chance of confounding, the higher the internal validity is. This lets the reader

know if the research was done correctly. External validity tells if the results of the study can be

generalized to other individuals and other situations outside of the study (Cooper, Heron, &

Howard, 2007). This helps the reader understand if the findings can be applied to situations in

real life. If a study has external validity, the results would be beneficial to others outside of the

study. Social validity is the social importance and acceptance of treatment goals, procedures,

and outcomes of a study (Cooper, Heron, & Howard, 2007). This will help to determine if the
 Manding: Communicating Effectively

behavior is age-appropriate for the individual. This research will compare the methodologies

used to define the behavior, how the behaviors are measured, and the treatment and experimental

designs used to treat the behavior.

Two commonly used designs used in mand research are multiple baseline and reversal design. A

multiple baseline design involves multiple subjects, traits, or settings before and after a treatment.

The treatment is started at different times so it can be determined that the changes are due to the

treatment and no other factors (Cooper, Heron, & Howard, 2007). This design helps to show

generalization over the population. Treatment is applied once the baseline is stable. If a significant

change occurs across all participants, then the treatment can be determined effective (Cooper, Heron,

& Howard, 2007). This type of design is widely used when the dependent variable is not expected to

return to normal after treatment is applied. Multiple baseline design does create the possibility of

confounding factors since a larger group of participants is used.

Most research studies use a multiple baseline design. Ingvarsson wanted to study the

effects of parent-implemented mand training on a 4-year-old boy with limited communication

skills (2011). A multiple baseline design across responses was used to evaluate the effects of

differential reinforcement contingent on framed mands (Ingvarsson, 2011). This allowed the

researcher to see if the reinforcements were increasing the use of framed mands. Multiple

baselines can also use multiple scenarios. Multiple opportunities can be used to elicit a specific

behavior. For children with autism, manding for “how” something works or “how” to obtain

information is a challenge. Multiple scenarios can be created to prompt the child to ask “how”

something works. This allows for trials to continue with other scenarios (Shillingsburg &

Valentino, 2011).
 Manding: Communicating Effectively

Another type of design study is reversal design. A reversal design or “withdrawal”

design is a single case design where the treatment is introduced after baseline data is collected.

The treatment is then withdrawn, and a second baseline period is conducted. The treatment can

also be reintroduced after the second baseline period (Cooper, Heron, & Howard, 2007). This

design can help researchers to determine if there is a functional relationship between the

independent variable and the dependent variables.

To increase the vocalization of preferred items, a mand baseline is taken to see if the

subject responds to a verbal prompt of “What do you want?” from the therapist (Kodak &

Clements, 2009). Reversal design will introduce mand training as a treatment. This data is

collected by delivering a verbal prompt, “What do you want?” and an echoic prompt “say music”

by the therapist (Kodak & Clements, 2009). The echoic prompts are eventually faded out to

develop independent responses. The reversal design allows the researcher to see if the behavior

continues after the treatment is introduced and then withdrawn.

Research designs can be as simple as a baseline phase and a treatment phase. This is the

AB design. In mand research, sometimes the subject will mand for an item, but does not desire

that item. Using an AB design, the researcher used a blind, nonverbal 28-year-old male to use

mands to increase communication skills. The baseline data collected shows that the subject

could mand (using sign language) for the drink or food but would throw it when he received the

cup or plate (Kee, Casey, Cea, Bicard, & Bicard, 2012). A touch-prompt intervention with a

fixed ratio was used as the treatment phase. This allowed the subject to use the mand more

evenly, based on his needs and wants for that item. A maintenance and follow-up phase were

used to determine if the mand training intervention was successful and that the subject was

independently manding for the desired objects (Kee, et al, 2012).

 Manding: Communicating Effectively

It is important to specify subjects’ age and gender, when creating a research study.

Manding is an early language skill, which means most of the participants in studies are younger

in age. In most of these studies, the participant was between 4 and 8-years-old and a male.

These subjects have some similar diagnosis and characteristics. Davis, Kahng, and Coryat,

chose a 4-year old boy with autism, who had a limited tact repertoire and did not mand

independently (2012). Another subject was Lucas, a 4-year-old boy who was diagnosed with an

autism spectrum disorder. He was non-verbal and occasionally would use his communication

device to mand for items (Torelli, Lambert, Da Fonte, Denham, Jedrzynski, & Houchins-Juarez,

2016). These participants are chosen due to the nature of the research. Most children who need

mand training are the younger children who are delayed in speech or have disorders that prevent

them from communication.

It is also common to find subjects in mand research that are diagnosed with autism

spectrum disorder (ASD). The two boys in the previous studies were diagnosed with ASD and

could not mand independently. Samuel is a 7-year-old male participant who was diagnosed with

ASD. He was chosen with a 3-6-word phrase repertoire but did not know how to mand “how” to

access information (Shillingsburg & Valentino, 2011). A pattern can be seen with the different

research studies. The participant is younger than 8-years-old, has a communication skill delay,

another disability, or a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder.

Older participants can be found in this research area. Mand repertoire was being

researched to see if it would help decrease problem behaviors. This study used a 12-year-old

male participant with autism, was nonverbal, and exhibited self-injurious behaviors (Cornelius

Habarad, 2015). Problem behaviors were common among the older subjects. In a previous

study, the subject was a 28-year-old male, who was blind and nonverbal. He threw items if he
 Manding: Communicating Effectively

was given an item that he gave the mand for, but it was not what he wanted (Kee, et al, 2012).

The participants’ ages, gender, and background information can help to recognize patterns

between the studies.

Research settings can be held in different locations. These settings should be a place

where the participants can be observed. It could also be an environment where the participant is

comfortable. In the mand research, settings varied from homes, schools, and treatment facilities.

Two studies were performed at the participants’ homes. For some subjects, the research setting is

in a hospital, outpatient facility, or behavior center.

Another commonly used setting for mand research is the classroom. This setting is

beneficial if the intervention is teaching a new skill. In Shillingsburg and Valentino’s research,

the subject attended a specific school that focused on language deficits (2011). The setting

provided materials that were needed to help teach the subject “how” mands. The school setting

also helped to create different “how to” scenarios for the researcher to elicit a “how” mand from

the subject (Shillingsburg & Valentino, 2011). Buckley and Newchok also used the participant’s

school as a setting (2005). The participant, Sonny was a 7-year-old boy who was diagnosed with

autism and attended a private school for students with developmental disabilities (Buckley &

Newchok, 2005). This setting also presented the materials the researcher would need to collect

data. The school setting could also be chosen since the subject spends almost eight hours a day

there. The research may require generalization of environments.

Strengths of treatments can include new behaviors learned and maintained or providing

new information on the effectiveness of interventions. Valentino and Shillingsburg, developed a

study where the subject would use sign language as an alternative communication skill (2011).

The subject was exposed to three signs of preferred activities: bubbles, balloon, and playing with
 Manding: Communicating Effectively

shaving cream (Valentino & Shillingsburg, 2011). This treatment allowed the subject to learn an

alternative way to communicate preferred activities. A multiple baseline design was used in this

study. Treatment was applied once the baseline was stable. If a significant change occurs across

all interventions, then the treatments can be determined effective (Cooper, Heron, & Howard,

2007). This type of design is widely used when the dependent variable is not expected to return

to normal after treatment is applied.

Another treatment strength is consistency. The researcher will want to see that treatment

implementing, data collection, and results are consistent. This was a strength in the Kodak and

Clements study of mands and tact with concurrent echoic training (2009). There was no

unprompted tact or mands used during the baseline phases or mand and tact training. The results

were consistent across operant (Kodak & Clements, 2009).

After a treatment is tested, researchers want to make sure that the subject can maintain

the behavior or skill. Therefore, including a maintenance or follow up phase is beneficial. Kee

et al, included a maintenance and follow up phase after the baseline and intervention data was

collected (2012). This allowed the researchers to see that the subject retained the behavior and

could mand for objects he desires.

Limitations can also be found in research. In single-subject designs, there is only one

participant. When measures are taken to increase the internal validity, the generalization of the

research can be decreased. Researchers want to show that the treatment or procedure can be

generalized to real life situations and other groups of individuals. When research has external

validity, the treatment or procedure can be generalized across populations (Cooper, Heron, &

Howard, 2007). If the research was performed with more participants, the results could be

generalized to more social groups and individuals.

 Manding: Communicating Effectively

Shillingsburg and Valentino state the need for more participants to replicate the study

(2011). This study also talks about how the skill to mand “how” was not observed in a natural

setting. The researchers believe this is a limitation since it was not determined if generalization

would occur in other environments and situations with other individuals (Shillingsburg &

Valentino, 2011). This study also did not include a maintenance phase. It is unclear if the

subject could maintain the skill. Further research would want to include generalization in the

treatment phase.

Baseline data can also be a limitation. Cornelius Habarad explained that her baseline

data posed a threat to the validity since after three days of baseline data there was an increase of

SIB behavior (2015). This would normally suggest that the researcher head in a different

direction. Limitations can also occur in data collections. In the parent-implemented mand

training study, the subject’s mother videotaped the weekly meetings. Formal reliable data was

not collected from these tapes. The tapes were also not saved for future scoring (Ingvarsson,

2011). This limitation could prevent future replication of the study.

The research shows many ways to include mands into therapy and daily life. Mand

training can be used with children who have language delays or are nonverbal. It is especially

beneficial to children who have been diagnosed on the autism spectrum. Sign language is a

form of manding that also helps children with autism communicate (Valentino & Shillingsburg,

2011). This is one area that can benefit from future research. The exposure to sign language can

be observed in subjects with autism who communicate with other communication devices or

systems (Valentino & Shillingsburg, 2011).

Reinforcement was also used in some studies to help encourage target behaviors. The

highly preferred reinforcements increased the likelihood that the behavior would occur again.
 Manding: Communicating Effectively

The less preferred reinforces produced some future behaviors, however, the data shows it was

less than the items that were highly preferred (Boelter & Hagopian, 2011). Another purpose for

reinforcements and mands, was to decrease problem behaviors. Data and graphs show a

decrease of SIB and aggression when mands were increased during the session (Cornelius

Habarad, 2015). This is evidence that when an individual can effectively communicate needs

and wants, occurrences of aggression and self-injurious behavior will decrease.

The results of a study provide instructions on how other researchers can replicate or build

onto the study. Researchers summarize and analyze the data at the end of the study. This will

show evidence if the study was successful. In the Cornelius Habarad study, the data showed a

correlation between the manding repertoire and the SIB rate decreasing (2015). The second

condition was also successful at finding a relationship between the rapid deceleration of SIB and

the increase of manding. However, the third condition showed a correlation between the

reintroduction of working time-out and an increase of SIB behaviors (Cornelius Habarad, 2015).

The first and second conditions show a functional relationship between manding and decreasing

SIB behaviors.

In most of the mand research studies, a form of mand training was used to increase a

target behavior. Several studies included mand training prior to treatment or intervention. This

was done to help facilitate the use of mands (Davis, Kahng, & Coryat, 2012). The exposure to

mands helped to increase the target behavior during the intervention. This had a positive impact

on study results.
Manding: Communicating Effectively
 Manding: Communicating Effectively

References:

Boelter, E. W., & Hagopian, L. P. (2011). Effects of Preference on Verification of Discriminated

Mands. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(4), 931-935.

Buckley, S. D., & Newchok, D. K. (2005). Differential Impact of Response Effort within a

Response Chain on Use of Mands in a Student with Autism. Research in Developmental

Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(1), 77-85.

Cornelius Habarad, S. M. (2015). The power of the mand: Utilizing the mand repertoire to

decrease problem behavior. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 20(2), 158-162.

doi:10.1037/h0101310

Davis, B. J., Kahng, S., & Coryat, K. (2012). Manipulating Motivating Operations to Facilitate

the Emergence of Mands for a Child with Autism. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 28145-

150.

Ingvarsson, E. T. (2011). Parent-Implemented Mand Training: Acquisition of Framed Manding

in a Young Boy with Partial Hemispherectomy. Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, 44(1), 205-209.

Kee, S. B., Casey, L. B., Cea, C. R., Bicard, D. F., & Bicard, S. E. (2012). Increasing

Communication Skills: A Case Study of a Man with Autism Spectrum Disorder and

Vision Loss. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 106(2), 120-125.

 Manding: Communicating Effectively

Kodak, T., & Clements, A. (2009). Acquisition of Mands and Tact with Concurrent Echoic

Training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(4), 839-843.

Shillingsburg, M. A., & Valentino, A. L. (2011). Teaching a Child with Autism to Mand for

Information Using "How". Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27179-184.

Torelli, J. N., Lambert, J. M., Da Fonte, M. A., Denham, K. N., Jedrzynski, T. M., & Houchins-

Juarez, N. J. (2016). Assessing acquisition of and preference for mand topographies

during functional communication training. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9(2), 165-168.

doi:10.1007/s40617-015-0083-y

Valentino, A. L., & Shillingsburg, M. A. (2011). Acquisition of Mands, tact’s, and Intraverbals

through Sign Exposure in an Individual with Autism. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 2795-

101.