A comparison of general and descriptive praise in teaching intraverbal behavior to children with autism.
Descriptive praise gives a tiny, brief boost over general praise when teaching intraverbals, so use either and focus on good targets.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Two children with autism practiced intraverbal questions like “What do you wear on your feet?”
The teacher switched between two praise styles each day. One day she said “Nice job!” The next she said “Nice job saying shoes!”
What they found
Descriptive praise helped the kids answer a little faster at first. The edge disappeared after a few sessions.
How this fits with other research
Gale et al. (2023) also tweaked praise, but they changed voice instead of words. They found enthusiastic tone matters more than wording for kids with autism.
The two studies line up: small, short-lived boosts that fade. Together they tell us praise tweaks give only gentle nudges.
Lattimore et al. (2009) used fast-paced drills too, yet taught adults job skills. Their big gains show the skill target, not the drill speed, drives results.
Why it matters
Stop hunting for the “perfect” praise phrase. Say what feels natural and keep the pace brisk. Spend your energy picking functional targets and mixing trials instead of polishing praise words.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Keep your current praise; spend the saved planning time on tougher intraverbal questions instead.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Descriptive praise has been recommended widely as an important teaching tactic for children with autism, despite the absence of published supporting evidence. We compared the effects of descriptive and general praise on the acquisition and maintenance of intraverbal skills with 2 children with autism. The results showed slight advantages of descriptive praise in teaching efficiency in the majority of comparisons; however, these effects dissipated over time.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2012 · doi:10.1901/jaba.2012.45-593