Increasing response diversity in children with autism.
A simple lag-3 rule can widen block-play variety in kids with autism using the same old toys.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team used a lag-3 schedule with kids with autism. The kids had to build three different block towers before earning a reward.
They could ask for help, but the main rule stayed: no repeats until three new shapes were made.
What they found
The children started making many new towers. The same blocks were on the table the whole time.
No extra toys were needed. Just the rule 'build something new' created more variety.
How this fits with other research
Gardner et al. (2009) did this first with sounds. They used lag-1 and showed it can make vocal play grow.
Jones et al. (2010) bumped the lag to three and moved it to block play. Same idea, new place.
Olin et al. (2020) later mixed lag-1 and lag-2 with picture cues for social questions. All three studies show: higher lag equals more variety.
Cohrs et al. (2017) added many examples before the lag. That combo works for social skills groups.
Why it matters
You can stretch flexible play without buying new items. Pick one toy set, set a lag-3 rule, and reinforce new shapes. It keeps therapy fresh and builds creativity in kids who like sameness.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Set a lag-3 for one toy: child must play three different ways before praise.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Repetitive and invariant behavior is a diagnostic feature of autism. We implemented a lag reinforcement schedule to increase response diversity for 6 participants with autism aged 6 to 10 years, 4 of whom also received prompting plus additional training. These procedures appeared to increase the variety of building-block structures, demonstrating that an intervention that includes differential reinforcement can increase response diversity for children with an autism spectrum disorder.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2010 · doi:10.1901/jaba.2010.43-265