A Comparison Between Direct Telehealth and In-Person Methods of Teaching Expressive Labels to Children Diagnosed With Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Knopp et al. (2023) asked a simple question: can kids with autism learn new words just as well on Zoom as at a table? They taught three children to name pictures using the same DTT script. Some days the BCBA sat in the room. Other days she taught through a laptop.

Each child got both styles in an alternating pattern. The team tracked how many trials each child needed to master 20 new picture labels.

All three kids hit mastery in both setups. One child needed fewer trials on Zoom. One did slightly better in person. The third showed no difference. No clear winner emerged.

The authors call it a tie: telehealth DTT can match in-person results when the child already imitates on screen and sits for brief table work.

O'Neill et al. (2022) used the same alternating-treatments design but swapped prompt delays instead of the delivery mode. They also saw fast mastery, showing the design itself is solid for spotting small teaching differences.

Koegel et al. (2014) looked at receptive labels years earlier. They found starting with a 3-item conditional array beat simple drills. The new study extends that line by asking not 'how to teach' but 'where to teach.'

Al-Nasser et al. (2019) showed that novices can run DTT with picture-based self-instruction packets. Pair their packets with Kandice's telehealth model and you could train parents or techs at home without losing fidelity.

If a child has basic attending and imitation skills, you can move expressive-label programs online without fear of lost progress. That opens slots for kids in rural areas, shortens drive time, and lets you supervise more cases in one afternoon. Start with a quick tech check, keep trials short, and track trials-to-criterion just like you would at the clinic table.