The effect of a parent-implemented imitation intervention on spontaneous imitation skills in young children with autism
Abstract
Children with autism exhibit significant deficits in their ability to spontaneously imitate the play actions and descriptive gestures of others. Reciprocal imitation training (RIT) is a naturalistic imitation intervention designed to teach spontaneous imitation skills during play. This study assessed the effectiveness of parent-implemented RIT using a multiple-baseline design across three young children with autism and their mothers. After an initial baseline, mothers were taught to implement RIT techniques with their child twice a week for 10 weeks in a clinic setting. Two mothers were taught to use RIT to teach object imitation. The third mother was taught to use RIT to target both object and gesture imitation in a multiple-baseline design across behaviors. Generalization was assessed in the families' homes at the end of treatment and a 1-month follow-up. Parents learned to use the intervention strategies and their children exhibited increases in spontaneous imitation. These findings replicate the results from previous studies, indicating that RIT is effective for teaching imitation skills to young children with autism in a naturalistic setting and extend the findings to parents.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Many autism studies using single subject designs have demonstrated positive effects of parent-delivered interventions for reducing problem behaviors, improving nonverbal and verbal communication, and increasing appropriate play and imitation.
“many autism studies using single subject designs have demonstrated the positive effects of parent-delivered interventions for reducing problem behaviors, improving children’s nonverbal and verbal communication skills, and increasing appropriate play and imitation skills.”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 259
- Authors
- Ingersoll, B., & Gergans, S.
- Affiliations
- Lewis & Clark College (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ingersoll, Brooke
- ORCID
- Ingersoll, Brooke
- Venue
- Research in Developmental Disabilities
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-03
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 163-175
- ISSN
- 0891-4222 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1969750774
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 4.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Research in Developmental Disabilities (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Keywords
- autism spectrum disorder, spontaneous imitation, parent-mediated intervention, gesture imitation, play, mothers, naturalistic intervention, generalization, young children
- MeSH terms
- Autistic Disorder, Child, Preschool, Communication, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Imitative Behavior, Male, Parent-Child Relations, Social Behavior, Teaching
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review