Manding for information, or requesting, information is a skill that children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) lack or are deficient in. Manding for information (MFI) is defined as requests in which the information received becomes a conditioned reinforcer due to it consistently preceding an established reinforcer. Requesting information can take on several different forms: Who? Which? What? Where? Why? How? Or when? Developing teaching procedures to facilitate the learning of this behavioral cusp is often deemed challenging. Recent research has examined several types of MFI, different prompting procedures used to teach MFI, and generalization tests. There was a lack of research on how to design generalization procedures for MFI. This review examined previous research studies to identify effective strategies for promoting generalization of MFI, recommendations for future research, and practical considerations when programming generalization for MFI procedures.Much like manding for an item, MFI must also include an establishing operation. However, in manding for information, the reinforcer is information. There are several researched ways on how to teach MFI: errorless teaching, discrete trial training, prompt fading, imitative prompts, and textual prompts. Generally, these procedures have been successful. However, more research is needed on teaching this skill to generalize (Betz, Higbee, & Pollard, 2010).In applied settings, generalization of skills is one the most important factors when determining what procedures to use for skill acquisition. Generalization is the emergence of taught skills in novel settings without direct training. Therefore, it is of great importance that MFI generalization procedures be evaluated and successful generalization procedures are determined. The purpose of this study was to review and evaluate the literature on effective strategies for promoting the generalization of MFI and develop recommendations for future research.Keywords: manding for information, manding, generalization

Betz, Higbee, and Pollard (2010) researched which Manding For Information (MFI) forms taught using structured teaching trials generalized across stimuli and settings. Participants included were three preschool aged children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). All three participants spoke in three-to-five-word sentences. The dependent variable of this study was the percentage of independent MFI’s using “where?.” These sessions were scored as: independent, incorrect, or prompted.Prior to each session a determined preferred item for each participant was hidden while they were distracted. During baseline, the participants were given the instruction, “Let us play. Get (item)” and were not prompted. Training followed the baseline condition. Participants were given the same instruction and given five seconds to look for the item or manding for information. If the participant did not say “where’s (item)” or gave an incorrect response, the instructor repeated the instruction and then verbally prompted the response. This prompt was given twice if the participant did not respond to the first verbal prompt. If the participant did not respond to the second prompt the trial was incorrect and the next trial began within one to two seconds. If the participant responded, the instructor gave verbal praise and repeated the instruction. If the participant responded within five seconds the instructor told the participant where the item was located.Generalization probes were conducted immediately after the teaching phase. There were three probes: a novel toy in a training setting, novel toys in novel settings and a natural behavior chain without a discriminative stimulus. There was one trial for each probe. In the natural behavior chain, if the participants did not mand for the missing item, they were trained using an interrupted chain procedure in which the instructor verbally prompted the “where’s (item)” response. After being taught one chain, they were probed for novel behavior chains.Results for this study indicated that the response successfully generalized across the novel toys in training setting and novel toys in novel setting. In the natural behavior chain probe, the response did not generalize without direct training of one natural behavior chain. The findings of this study suggested that while structured trial training may lead to generalization of MFI’s it may be more beneficial if MFIs were taught using naturalistic teaching for generalization to occur. This study’s results are extremely important when considering programming generalization for MFI. The suggestion for teaching MFI in the naturalistic setting indicated that structured teaching may not be beneficial for generalizing MFI.

Similar to study one, Bloh, Scagliotti, Baugh, Sheenan, Silas, and Zulli (2017) programmed for generalization of MFI for two children diagnosed with ASD. However, this study used errorless teaching to teach “how?,” rather than a quick transfer procedure to teach “where?.” The dependent variable of this study was the cumulative number of times “how?” was observed and the number of times it was used to acquire information.This study also conducted its teaching in structured trials but included errorless teaching. Rather than allowing for an incorrect response to occur, the correct response was prompted with a zero second delay. Unlike study one, this prompting procedure did not include a stimulus transfer. Following training, the participants were given five non trained scenarios where the clinicians reinforced the response “how?”  with the information needed to access the reinforcer. This is similar to study one where novel toys and settings were probed for to test if generalization were to occur.Results indicated that one participant achieved mastery criteria for three out of the five non-trained activities and one participant achieved mastery criteria for all five. Study two discussed there may be potential benefits if a stimulus transfer procedure were to be included in their methods. Study one gathered successful results for each participants’ MFI generalization to novel stimuli and settings using a stimulus transfer procedure. A stimulus transfer procedure may have been beneficial for the participant in study two who did not generalize to all five non-training sessions.Study two incorporated two key features that study one did not: maintenance probes and training with multiple instructors. Maintenance data were collected three weeks following the participants meeting the mastery criteria of three consecutive independent responses across all non-training activities. Five clinicians implemented these procedures and were rotated so that the participants did not work with the same person for more than two days in a row. Consistent responding for both participants suggested that generalization across multiple instructors occurred. Study one did not test to determine if this effected their participants’ responding. Maintenance probes were also conducted to determine if the behavior remained consistent over time. In study two the MFI response maintained for both participants. Study one’s results may have been strengthened if they included multiple instructors and a maintenance probe.A strength to study one was that they included a generalization probe where the MFI response was not preceded by a possible controlling verbal discriminative stimulus: the natural behavior chain probe. Study two did not include a session where the MFI response “how?” was not preceded by a verbal discriminative stimulus. This does not allow for study two to indicate if the MFI response “how?” was under the control of an establishing operation, the discriminative stimulus or multiply controlled. This study’s findings also highlight the weakness of teaching manding for information in structured trials rather than using naturalistic teaching to eliminate the contrived discriminative stimulus as the controlling variable.

Shillingsburg, Valentino, Bowen, Bradley and Zavatkay (2011) taught two children diagnosed with ASD to request for information using “who?”, “when?”, “which?”, and “where?”. Like study one and two, the procedures in study three included structured trials for training. This study also utilized the contriving of establishing operations, settings and creating scenarios in which the participant could learn to use those mands. The MFI responses “who?,” “when?” and “which?” resulted in information as the reinforcer. The “when?” response resulted in a quick and known task presented to the participant prior to start of a preferred activity.Study three’s training procedures were like that of study one, it included a re-presentation of the verbal discriminative stimulus with a verbal prompt allowing for the participant to echo the prompt. However, study three did not include another presentation without the verbal prompt present. Following the echo of the verbal prompt, the participant received the information requested.Generalization and maintenance probe were included in study three. Like study one and two, generalization probes were implemented on non-trained scenarios following mastery of one scenario. However, study three’s procedures failed to generalize to the untaught specific responses for all MFI responses except “who?” and had to be directly trained for mastery to emerge. For the maintenance probes, one participant demonstrated all requesting for information responses maintained, while the other participant maintained only two requesting for information responses over time.Like study two, study three failed to determine if the MFI response was under the control of the establishing operation, verbal discriminative stimulus, or multiply controlled. Study three’s procedures lacked the re-presentation of verbal discriminative stimulus without the verbal prompt present, programming for generalization across multiple instructors, and demonstration of MFI responses in the naturalistic setting.

The three studies examined in this review successfully taught multiple children diagnosed with ASD to mand for information using different responses. All three studies used structured trials with slight deviations in prompting procedures. Based on the results from all three studies, this review offers several recommendations for future research and practical uses for MFI teaching procedures.The most consistent limitation for all three studies was the failure to test for or exhibit the MFI’s generalization to naturalistic settings. This limitation is incredibly important to note because without testing these procedures for generalization to the natural setting, it is unable to be determined if these teaching procedures are useful outside of the contrived setting. Study one tested generalization of their teaching procedures to the natural setting and it was determined to be unsuccessful and required direct training for MFI responses to emerge. The goal of applied research is for individuals to learn responses that are generalizable to the natural setting. If these teaching procedures fail to generalize, they are of no practical use.Study two and three failed to test for the generalization to the natural setting. This review suggests future research always include generalization probes to the natural setting. If the results from the probes fail to demonstrate generalization, teaching procedures should be modified to the individual’s natural setting. Generalization probes for non-trained natural settings should continue to be tested for following direct training of one natural setting. For practical use, it may not always be possible to teach MFI responses 100% in the natural environment. This review suggests practitioners initially contrive settings in which the individual can learn MFI responses with a verbal discriminative stimulus, and once demonstrating mastery, incorporate scenarios in which no verbal discriminative stimulus is provided. Practitioners should always include prompt and prompt fading procedures individualized to their client.Study one’s use of stimulus transfer procedures was the most successful when programming for generalization of MFI responses across novel stimuli and settings. Study two and three did not use stimulus transfer procedures and demonstrated weaker generalization results. From this correlation, it is suggested that future research test if stimulus transfer procedures are more effective in teaching and programming generalization for MFI responses. Practitioners may want to incorporate stimulus transfer procedures when using imitative prompts to teach MFI responses based on these results and because it is an evidence-based practice used to teach manding.Another limitation was study two and three’s failure to determine what the controlling variable for the MFI responses was. Future research may want to compare initially teaching the MFI responses with a verbal discriminative stimulus before teaching in the natural setting without the presence of a verbal discriminative stimulus. versus only teaching in the natural setting without the presence of a verbal discriminative stimulus. This research would help determine whether initially teaching in the contrived setting is a necessary component when programming MFI responses for generalization. For the practical use, instructors can integrate trials in the contrived settings and naturalistic teaching as they work with their clients; the natural setting may take the form of behavior chains.The purpose of this review was to evaluate previous literature on programming generalization for MFI’s and develop recommendations for future research and practical use. At the time of this review the research was limited and it is suggested that this topic is more thoroughly evaluated in future studies.

Betz, A. M., Higbee, T. S., & Pollard, J. S. (2010). Promoting generalization of mands for information used by young children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4(3), 501–508. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2009.11.007Bloh, C., Scagliotti, C., Baugh, S., Sheenan, M., Silas, S., & Zulli, N. (2017). Using errorless teaching to teach generalized manding for information using “how?” Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 6(1), 1-19.Shillingsburg, M. A., Bowen, C. N., & Valentino, A. L. (2014). Mands for information using “how” under eo-absent and eo-present conditions. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 30(1), 54-61. doi: 10.1007/s40616-013-0002-7Shillingsburg, M. A., Gayman, C. M., & Walton, W. (2016). Using textual prompts to teach mands for information using “who?” The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 32(1), 1-14. doi: 10.1007/s40616-016-0053-7Shillingsburg, M. A., Valentino, A. L., Bowen, C. N., Bradley, D., & Zavatkay, D. (2011). Teaching children with autism to request information. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(1), 670-679. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2010.08.004Shillingsburg, M. A., Valentino, A. L., & Marcus Autism Center. (2011). Teaching a child with autism to mand for information using “how?” The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27(1), 179-184. doi: 10.1007/bf03393100Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts. If you like to know more about behavioral analysis or its applied services, contact us. Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Twitter to stay on top of our latest updates.