A conceptual analysis of request teaching procedures for individuals with severely limited verbal repertoires.

The authors looked at every published way to teach requests to people who speak little or not at all. They did not run new kids; they lined up the methods on paper. They asked: what parts of each method make the child want to ask, what extra cues are given, and what happens after the ask?

All methods can work, but they load different amounts of 'extra stuff' like prompts, models, or toys. If you do not plan how to pull that extra stuff away, the ask may stay stuck at the table and never show up at home. You must control the child's drive for the item and the payoff they get, then test in new places.

Taylor et al. (1993) showed the idea in action: five kids with profound ID learned true asking because the team ran quick 'wrong-item' checks and fixed mistakes on the spot. The 1995 paper explains why that step matters.

Mason et al. (2019) later gave us the SCoRE metric so you can count how much mand, tact, echoic, etc. a child uses after you follow the 1995 plan.

Bao et al. (2017) review of 16 years of autism mand studies backs the same point: most teams teach mands first, but few plan the fade-out; the 1995 warning still applies.

Next time you write a mand program, list the 'extra stuff' you add and when you will remove each piece. Build in generalization probes from day one. If the learner takes the wrong item, run a quick correction like Taylor et al. (1993) and track the balance with SCoRE. Your kid's requests will travel with them, not just live at the clinic table.