An evaluation of evidence-based interventions to increase compliance among children with autism.

Three autistic children took part. Each child first got easy tasks to cut effort. If that failed, the team switched to rewarding compliance. If rewards still failed, they added gentle physical guidance.

The whole package was tested one child at a time. The order stayed the same: effort cut, then rewards, then guidance.

No single step worked for every child. One child only needed easier tasks. Another needed prizes. The third needed gentle guidance.

Every child ended up following adult requests more often. The key was switching tactics when the first one stalled.

Marroquin et al. (2014) later showed parents can learn the same moves just by watching short clips. The 2012 study focused on therapists; the 2014 study moved the work to moms and dads.

Griffith et al. (2012) ran a similar single-case test in a classroom. They used errorless prompting instead of rewards. Both papers got big compliance gains, but used different tools.

Trembath et al. (2023) umbrella review warns there is no universal fix for autistic kids. The 2012 paper proves that point: each child needed a different step in the sequence.

Breider et al. (2024) RCT also found face-to-face parent coaching beats waitlist, but online blends fail. Together the studies say live coaching matters, whether the adult is a parent or a therapist.

Start with the least intrusive move, but stay ready to pivot. If easing the task fails, add strong praise or tokens. If rewards stall, add light guidance. Track each step and switch fast. This flexible ladder keeps sessions calm and avoids power struggles.