A Systematic Review of Derived Relational Responding Beyond Coordination in Individuals with Autism and Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Abstract

As interest in derived relational responding has increased, so have the number of investigations evaluating interventions to promote the emergence of derived responding for individuals with autism, as well as other intellectual and developmental disabilities. However, much of the literature has focused on the relation of sameness, and less is known about interventions to facilitate derived responding in other relations. Systematic searches identified 38 studies contained in 30 articles that met inclusion criteria. These studies were analyzed according to their participants, assessment methods, experimental design, content taught, setting, teaching procedures, derived responses, outcomes, and reliability measures. The quality of the studies was measured using the Single Case Analysis and Research Framework (SCARF). The results of the current review indicate that many learners with autism spectrum disorder and other intellectual and developmental disabilities demonstrate derived relational responding beyond the relation of coordination across varied instructional content and teaching methodologies, but the quality and rigor of the published literature requires the results be interpreted with caution, leading to recommendations for future research.

Keywords: Autism spectrum disorder; Derived relational responding; Intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Fig. 1

Visual representation of systemic search procedures

Fig. 2

Visual representation of the frequencies of interventions used to teach each relational frame or frames. CDT = conditional discrimination training, DT = discrimination training, FBTP = false belief training protocol, IT = intraverbal training, MEI = multiple exemplar instruction, MET = multiple exemplar training, MTS = match to sample, O = observation, RT = relational training, RIT = reverse intraverbal training, SEI = single exemplar instruction, TARPA = training and assessment of relational precursors and abilities, TT = tact training

Fig. 3

Results for primary data measurement. Study quality and rigor increases as data points move down the x-axis, while primary outcomes are increasingly positive as data points move up the y-axis. While many of the studies included for review had positive outcomes, as indicated by the clustering of data points at the top of the graph, many of the studies had weak to moderate overall quality and rigor, as indicated by the clustering of data points on the left-hand side of the graph

Fig. 4

Results for generalization measurement. As data points move down the x-axis, internal validity increases, while generalized outcomes are increasingly positive as data points move up 0 1 2 3 4 Primary Outcomes Overall Study Quality & Rigor 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 Quality & Rigor of Generalization Measurement Generalized Outcomes Post Only Pre/Post Intermittently Experimentally 4 3 2 1 0 the y-axis. While many of the studies included for review had positive generalized outcomes, as indicated by the clustering of data points at the top of the graph, most data points being plotted on the left-hand side of the graph indicates that internal validity was relatively weak for many of the included studies

Fig. 5

Results for maintenance measurement. As data points move down the x-axis, the time between intervention and maintenance measurement increases, while maintained outcomes are increasingly positive as data points move up the y-axis. Maintained outcomes were generally positive, which is evidenced by the clustering of data points at the top of the graph. However, there are fewer data points represented within the graph as few of the included studies measured participant maintenance