Autism & Developmental

Response shaping to improve food acceptance for children with autism: Effects of small and large food sets.

Turner et al. (2020) · Research in developmental disabilities 2020
★ The Verdict

Shaping works best when you flex the food set size: go big for variety, then small for the first real bite.

✓ Read this if BCBAs treating food selectivity in kids with autism
✗ Skip if Clinicians already using escape extinction with good success

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

The team tested two ways to shape food acceptance in kids with autism. One child got a big rotating set of foods. The other child got a small constant set. They used a multiple-baseline design across behaviors.

They shaped tiny steps. First touch the food, then smell, then lick, then bite. Praise followed each step. No escape extinction was used.

02

What they found

Results were mixed. The large set helped one child meet many new foods. The small set helped the other child actually swallow a new food.

When the first child stalled at just touching, the team switched to a small set. Only then did eating happen.

03

How this fits with other research

Hodges et al. (2017) also used shaping and got four new foods eaten by every kid. They used hierarchical bites plus praise. The 2020 study shows set size can make or break that progress.

Davis et al. (2023) later showed sequential bite presentation beats simultaneous in class. Both studies skip escape extinction and still gain bites. The 2020 data say start big for variety, then shrink for intake.

Penrod et al. (2012) used high-probability sequences before bite requests. The 2020 study adds another layer: change the food pool size if the child stalls.

04

Why it matters

You can run shaping without escape extinction and still expand diets. Start with a large rotating menu to build variety. If the child only interacts without eating, drop to a small constant set of 2-3 foods until the first real bite occurs. Track each step and switch set size as soon as progress stalls.

FREE CEUs

Get CEUs on This Topic — Free

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.

60+ on-demand CEUs (ethics, supervision, general)
New live CEU every Wednesday
Community of 500+ BCBAs
100% free to join
Join The ABA Clubhouse — Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Pick 6 new foods, rotate them daily, shape to bite; if the child only touches after 3 days, cut to 2 foods and keep shaping.

02At a glance

Intervention
shaping
Design
multiple baseline across behaviors
Sample size
2
Population
autism spectrum disorder
Finding
mixed
Magnitude
medium

03Original abstract

BACKGROUND: Food selectivity, characterized by food refusal, limited food repertoire, or preference for certain types of foods, is common among children with ASD. METHOD: In this study, researchers examined the effects of a response shaping procedure using a large rotating food set and a small constant food set on food acceptance for two boys with ASD. The small set consisted of three foods that were presented during every session; the large set consisted of 15 foods, of which three were presented during each session, in randomly ordered sets. Researchers measured the percentage of correct behaviors and the cumulative number of foods with which participants interacted. Two concurrently operating multiple baseline across behaviors designs were used to assess whether the shaping procedure resulted in increased correct responding compared to baseline conditions, and whether the intervention was differentially effective with large versus small food sets. RESULTS: The procedures were similar in efficiency for one participant, although he ate many more foods in the large set condition. For the other participant, shaping was successful at increasing some acceptance behaviors (e.g., putting food in his mouth) but only the small set resulted in eating a new food. CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners should consider use of less restrictive or intrusive interventions to promote food acceptance and the use of larger sets of foods, modified to include fewer foods in the case of poor response to intervention.

Research in developmental disabilities, 2020 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103574