Designing Receptive Language Programs: Pushing the Boundaries of Research and Practice

LaMarca et al. (2018) read every receptive-language paper they could find. They pulled out 21 different ways to teach kids with autism to understand words.

The paper is a narrative review, not a new experiment. It gives you a menu of tactics when standard drills stop working.

The team found 21 alternative strategies. None are brand-new, but they had never been listed together in one place.

The list lets you swap tactics fast instead of giving up on a goal.

Gray (2024) extends this menu. She tested one item—match-to-sample with quick prompts—and two preschoolers learned 30 receptive words in only three short clinic visits.

Foti et al. (2015) overlap in a good way. Their systematic review of content-area studies also backs response-prompting and visual supports, the same tools LaMarca lists.

Mueller et al. (2000) may look like a clash. Their computer vocabulary beat teacher drills, yet LaMarca keeps teacher-led options. The gap is age and goal: M studied animated software for preschoolers, while LaMarca’s menu is broader and includes older learners.

When a child stalls on “touch car,” you now have 21 vetted switches ready to go. Try match-to-sample, add visuals, or move to the computer. Pick one, probe for a week, and keep the data. No more blank looks or program plateaus.