Self-Management Procedures: A Comparison across the
Autism Spectrum
Candice M. Southall and David L. Gast
The University of Georgia
Abstract: Individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) have difficulty generalizing learned behavior to
varied environments with independence. This review of 24 empirical studies compares self-management as a
systematic procedure for modifying one’s own behavior, to increase target behaviors in students with either
autistic disorder (AD) or high-functioning autism/Asperger’s syndrome (HFA/AS). Twenty-four single subject
research studies are included in the review comparing methodological, demographic, procedural, and outcome
aspects of self-management studies between the two disorders under the umbrella of Pervasive Developmental
Disorder (PDD). Results show that self-management procedures, regardless of components and age of child, are
effective in teaching social, vocational, and communication skills, or decreasing restrictive and repetitive
patterns of behaviors for individuals with a PDD. General conclusions are made on how the procedures are used
differently across levels of functioning within the autism spectrum and PDD. This literature should encourage
researchers and practitioners to continue interventions using self-management procedures with this population
to broaden the research base and improve methodological adequacy.
Empirically based interventions geared toward
students with a disability can increase independence
and inclusion within schools and
society (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007).
Federal mandates of least restrictive environments
for students meeting eligibility criteria
for special education services have increased
inclusion of children within general education
alongside their peers. According to
Campbell (2006), “As children with autism
continue to be educated alongside typically
developing children, professionals must continue
to understand how best to educate a
child with autism in an inclusive educational
setting” (p. 268). Students with an autism spectrum
disorder (ASD) often have academic capabilities
equal to peers but require direct
instruction on behaviors to increase success
in mainstreamed environments. Empiricallybased
strategies must be made available to
practitioners for use to increase desired behaviors
by individuals with ASD. Researchers
must also be persistent in their search for
research-based, generalizable strategies for
use in inclusive environments.
Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Brief History
Kanner (1943) described a peculiar condition
he found across a number of children in a
seminal clinical description (cited in Kanner,
1985). The first label of the disorder, infantile
autism, was presented in this report. Here
Kanner asserted that the 11 children observed
had been labeled as “Emotionally Disturbed”
or “Mentally Retarded” but displayed no characteristics
of a slow learner nor fit the profile
of emotional problems. The common characteristics
encompassed across the case studies
included a desire for aloneness, sameness,
stereotypy, and exhibited functional communication
and language delays (Rimland,
1985). Based primarily on the work of Kanner
and others whom he influenced, the American
Psychiatric Association included diagnostic
criteria for autistic disorder (AD) for the
first time in the third edition of the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-III, American Psychiatric Association,
1980).
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Candice M. Southall, Department
of Communication Sciences and Special Education,
University of Georgia, 516 Aderhold Hall, Athens,
GA 30602-7153.
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2011, 46(2), 155–171
© Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities
Self-Management Procedures across the Spectrum / 155
In 1944, an Austrian doctor, Hans Asperger,
described children with what he called autistic
psychopathy (Wing, 1981). Although the children
spoke at a normal age, Asperger found
impairment in social communication, similar
to that described by Kanner. In 1981, Lorna
Wing’s translation of Asperger’s report became
widely known in the U.S. Wing explained
that although the two conditions described
by Kanner and Asperger appeared
remarkably similar it was debated whether the
disorders were “varieties of the same underlying
abnormality or are separate entities”
(Wing, 1981, p. 115). Discrepancies between
clinical features based on Asperger’s work, as
translated by Wing, and Kanner’s work led to
discussion of a separate Autism Spectrum Disorder
(ASD) subtype.
In 1994, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV;
American Psychiatric Association, 1994) established
Asperger syndrome (AS) as one of five
pervasive developmental disorders (PDD). According
to diagnostic criteria, AS is differentiated
from AD in that there is no delay in
language or cognitive development, and no
qualitative impairment in the communication
domain. Witwer and Lecavalier (2008)
showed that some children with AS, under
diagnosis of the Autism Diagnostic InterviewRevised
(ADI-R) and Autism Diagnostic Observation
Schedule (ADOS) displayed core
symptoms of autism while also having high
full-scale intelligence quotients (IQ). Indeed,
approximately 33–59% of children with ASD
have cognitive deficits (Ͻ 70 IQ) according to
the Center for Disease Control (2007), however,
some children diagnosed with AD ultimately
display fewer autistic behaviors while
also having higher IQ and language skills
(Ozonoff & Rogers, 2003). These children are
commonly referred to as having high-functioning
autistic disorder (HFA) (Macintosh &
Dissanayake, 2004; Witwer & Lecavalier, 2008).
A commonality between AS and HFA are impairments
in social interactions, restrictive
and repetitive patterns of behavior, interests
and activities; and significant impairment in
social, occupational and other areas of functioning
(Thede & Coolidge, 2007). Students
with HFA require a different educational
treatment approach than persons with AD
due to differences in cognitive ability. This
treatment approach would be more similar to
interventions for children with AS. Since the
distinction between AD and AS remains controversial,
and some researchers assert that
AS is a milder form of AD along a continuum
(Campbell & Morgan, 1998), this review will
refer to HFA as separate from AD and combine
HFA and AS simply as HFA/AS.
Kanner (1943) purported that these children
within his seminal clinical description of
children with autism were not “mentally retarded”
but displayed poor performance explained
by motivational factors. While research
over the years show below average full
scale IQ for the nearly half of children with
AD assessed through developmentally appropriate
tests, it is now accepted that although
cognition is a deficit for many people with
autism, abilities are unusually scattered with
nonverbal skills more advanced than verbal
skills, with motivation playing a integral role
in performance (Volkmar & Klin, 2005, p. 8).
Definitions in the DSM-IV-TR (2000) classifying
autism subtypes, AD and AS, are general
guidelines of diagnosis for psychologists to
determine appropriate interventions and educational
placement. It is critical to examine
empirically-based interventions that increase
motivation and learning in individuals with
ASD as well as differentiate effectiveness of
interventions for those identified as AD versus
HFA/AS.
Self-Management
Combining empirically-based interventions
such as differential reinforcement procedures
and naturalistic approaches (Pivotal Response
Treatment [PRT], incidental teaching, etc.)
has been shown to increase desired behaviors
of people with ASD (Koegel, L., Koegel, R.,
Harrower, & Carter, 1999; Ozonoff, Rogers, &
Hendron, 2003; Scheuermann & Webber,
2002). Not only does motivation play into the
performance of people with ASD, these individuals
can learn or adopt strategies that will
assist in their education, employment, and social
life with increased self-awareness (Myles &
Southwick, 1999). In accordance with PRT,
motivation is critical to learning by children
with ASD, as is self-regulation and autonomy.
Neurotypical children exhibit the ability to
generalize newly learned behaviors to novel
156 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2011
situations and, unlike children with ASD, they
are responsive to environmental cues that lead
to their independence. Koegel et al. identify
self-management as a pivotal area of intervention
for individuals with ASD. They assert that
children on the autism spectrum can be
taught to discriminate between appropriate
and inappropriate behaviors through selfmanagement
instructional programs.
Self-management strategies are designed to
teach individuals to engage in actions that
change or maintain a particular behavior
(Shapiro, 1981). Within the self-management
paradigm, a specific aspect of a behavior is
targeted and individuals are taught to record
the target behavior when it occurs (Cole &
Bambara, 1992). Self-management procedures
typically comprise any combination of selfmonitoring
(also known as self-observation),
self-recording, self-evaluation, and self-reinforcement
or self-punishment. Self-monitoring
requires the individual to determine the
occurrence or non-occurrence of target behaviors,
which often include self-questioning.
For example, at the end of a given time period,
the student may ask, “Am I paying attention?”
A judgment about the occurrence
or nonoccurrence of the target behavior is
made as the individual records the answer
determined from self-monitoring by physically
marking these results on a data collection
form, taking a token, or using a counting
device (self-recording). The self-evaluation
component combines goal setting and determining
achievement of the goal. Lastly, selfreinforcement,
or self-punishment, is the contingent
self-delivery of an earned reward, or
with self-punishment, the self-withholding
of the reinforcer. This differential reinforcement
component is implemented to increase
the likelihood of students engaging in the
target behavior in the future under self-management
procedures.
Cooper et al. (2007) identified a number of
advantages of self-management over other behavioral
interventions including (a) minimal
teacher management along with more time
to teach, (b) greater generality of behavior
change by the student, and (c) application of
strategy in varied environments. Executive
function can be thought of as the cognitive
system that controls other cognitive processes
including set-shifting, inhibition of responses,
self-monitoring, and planning (Happe, Booth,
Charlton, & Hughes 2006). Self-reflection and
self-monitoring are specific deficits in executive
functioning by individuals on the autism
spectrum. Also, many inappropriate behaviors
emitted by students with ASD are difficult to
control because of poor outcomes (i.e., peer
disapproval). Self-management can serve as
a consequence by restricting stimulus conditions
for undesirable behavior. For example, a
classic study by Koegel, Koegel, Hurley, and
Frea (1992) used self-management with four
male participants diagnosed with autism who
were unresponsive to teacher and parent verbal
initiation. Each participant had receptive
and expressive language at or above the
3-year-old level and exhibited behavior difficulties
(e.g., tantrums). A multiple baseline
design across settings and participants combined
with a withdrawal for two participants
was used to evaluate the effects of self-observation,
self-recording, and self-reinforcement.
Yes and no questions were created prior to the
study related to children’s regular activities.
Difficulty levels were controlled. During training
in the clinic, researchers modeled appropriate
answers to questions and modeled how
to record the response on a wrist counter.
Researchers followed the same protocol for
unacceptable answers to questions and modeled
not counting on the counter. The wrist
counter was worn by children during role-play
sessions. At this point, children were reinforced
after every correct response, i.e., CRF.
Prompts ware faded after three hours of treatment.
Self-management procedures were implemented
at school, in the community, and
in home environments. Data were collected
during all sessions for appropriate and inappropriate
responses, disruptive behavior, and
accuracy of self-recording. Interobserver
agreement data were collected throughout
the study. It was concluded that self-management
procedures were successful in increasing
social responses by students with autism in
varied environments as well as required minimal
teacher presence. Researchers also found
a collateral reduction in disruptive behaviors
due to possible increased communication
skills and a decreased aversion during social
interaction.
Lee, Simpson, and Shogren (2007) pubSelf-Management
Procedures across the Spectrum / 157
lished a meta-analysis of the effects of selfmanagement
for students with autism. This
report analyzed effect size of single subject
research on self-management procedures
used to increase target behavior published between
1992 and 2001. They found that selfmanagement
procedures have an empowering
effect on students’ ability to control
behavior. They concluded that self-management
procedures will facilitate inclusion in
the general curriculum, as well as increase
students’ self-determination, thus improving
their quality of life.
General education teachers report high acceptability
of self-management procedures,
preferring student monitoring to teacher
monitoring because it frees teachers to perform
other instructional and related activities
(Prater & Hogan, 1992). Agran, Snow, and
Swanner (1999), however, reported that selfmonitoring
instruction is limited in applied
settings and is provided by only 35% of special
educators. At this point, it is imperative that
self-management research be analyzed to determine
which dimensions of the interventions
were effective and with what types of
individuals so educators will be to ascertain
the effectiveness of self-management procedures
with students on the autism spectrum.
While it is not a common practice in educational
settings, experts in the area of ASD
advocate for use of self-management procedures
(Wilkinson, 2005). The primary purpose
of this literature review is to examine
self-management procedures as an intervention
for individuals ages 3–25 with ASD from
January 1994 to December 2008. This review
compares demographics, procedures, and results
of self-management interventions found
in the literature between individuals with AD
and HFA/AS. Lastly, this review identifies dimensions
of self-management programs that
need further research.
Method
To identify empirical studies investigating the
effectiveness of self-management procedures
for students with AD and HFA/AS published
over the last 15 years, three types of search
methods were used (Wolery & Lane, 2010).
An electronic search was conducted through
ERIC, Academic Search Complete, Science
Direct, and PsycINFO using the advanced
search method with key terms “self-management,”
“self-monitoring,” “self-recording,”
“self-reinforcement,” “autism,” and “Asperger
syndrome.” The text was searched in each
article identified with related keywords. Secondly,
a hand search of common journals
publishing articles describing interventions
for the population of interest was conducted.
These included the Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, Focus on Autism and Developmental Disorders,
Education and Training in Developmental
Disabilities, and Behavioral Disorders. The third
method for searching literature was an ancestral
search of references cited in articles chosen
through electronic and hand search. In
consideration of which studies to accept for
this review, criteria included: (a) at least one
participant in the study was identified as having
a pervasive developmental disorder (PDD)
including AD, AS, or pervasive developmental
disorder—not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS);
(b) intervention included an independent
variable using a procedure that required a
student to take responsibility for behavior
through any one or more self-monitoring,
self-recording, and self-reinforcement procedures;
(c) studies were published in a peerreviewed
journal between January 1994 and
December 2008; and (d) a single-subject research
design (Gast, 2010) was used to evaluate
intervention effectiveness.
Results
The search resulted in 16 studies published in
11 different journals that targeted behaviors
of students with AD and eight studies from
five different journals that targeted behaviors
of student with HFA/AS using self-management
procedures: Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis (1), Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders (2), Behavioral Disorders (1), Behavioral
Interventions (3), Education and Training in Developmental
Disabilities (1), Education and Training
in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities
(4), Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders (1), Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities (2), Journal of Intellectual
and Developmental Disability (1), International
Journal of Disability (1), Journal of Development
and Education (1), Journal of Positive Behavior
158 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2011
Interventions (3), Journal of Developmental and
Physical Disabilities (2), Autism: The International
Journal of Research and Practice (1), and School
Psychology Quarterly (1). Tables 1 and 2 summarize
pertinent descriptors of each study including:
research design, participant gender,
chronological age, diagnosis, setting, and target
behavior. Five studies included individuals
with a disability other than AD or HFA/AS.
For these studies, research methodology, demographic,
procedural, and outcome variables
are examined for students with an ASD.
Single Subject Research Methodology
The merits of studies can be evaluated within
the context of single subject research designs.
Withdrawal designs provide a demonstration
of experimental control by withdrawing an
intervention and returning to a previous baseline
condition showing a replication of effect
TABLE 1
Descriptors of Self-Management Studies for Individuals with AD
Authors SS design Gender CA
Diagnosis/
Functioning Setting Behavior
Agran et al.
(2005)
Multiple baseline
across
participants
2/males 14 Autism ϩ MIID
(NS)
General education
classroom
% steps of
directions
followed
15
Coyle & Cole
(2004)
A-B-A for two
participants
3/males 11 Autismϩ ID-
DSM-IV
Special education
classroom
Time off-task
9
A-B-A-C-A for
one
participant
9
Embregts
(2002)
A-B-A-B 1/male 16 PDD ϩ ADHD
ϩ MIID-DSM
IV
Residential Setting Frequency of
Appropriate
behavior &
Inappropriate
behavior
Ganz &
Sigafoos
(2005)
Changing
Criterion
Design across
two
participants
2/males 20 AutismϩMoIDSchool
eval.
Self-contained
vocational
school
# of tasks
completed in
5 minutes
19
Hughes et al.
(2002)
Multiple baseline
across
participants
1/male 19 AutismϩSID-
(NS)
Inclusive high
school in hall
% of correct
responses
Kern et al.
(1997)
Multiple baseline
across settings
with a
withdrawal
imbedded
within the first
setting.
1/male 14 Autismϩ6
grade levels
below-(NS)
Rehabilitation
hospital
% time with
inappropriate
vocalizations
Mancina et
al. (2000)
Multiple baseline
across settings
1/female 12 AutismϩMoID-
School
eligibility
Special education
classroom
% occurrence of
vocalizations
Newman et
al. (1995)
Multiple baseline
across
participants
3/males 14 AutismϩMID
to MoID-
DSM-III-R
ASD after-school
program
# transition
identified16
17
Newman et
al. (1996)
A-B-C-A-C across
three
participants
3/males teen AutismϩID-
Independent
evaluation
Integrated school
in separate
room
% appropriate
conversation
Self-Management Procedures across the Spectrum / 159
(Gast & Hammond, 2010). Four (17%) selfmanagement
studies for individuals with ASD
used a withdrawal design. Changing criterion
designs evaluate shaping behaviors that are
currently in an individual’s repertoire providing
evidence of experimental control through
small increases toward a criterion (Gast &
Ledford, 2010). Changing criterion designs
were used in three (12.5%) of the studies. The
most common designs to evaluate self-management
treatment packages with individuals
with ASD were multiple baseline and multiple
probe designs. Their designs show experimental
control by first collecting pre-intervention
data across three or more tiers, then staggering
the introduction of the intervention across
participants, behaviors, or conditions. Five
studies (21%) used a multiple baseline across
behaviors to evaluate experimental control.
Three staggered intervention implementation
across settings (12.5%). Multiple baseline design
across participants was used in nine studies
(37%).
Procedural Fidelity
Billingsly, White, and Munson (1980) introduced
the importance of measuring proceTABLE
1—(Continued)
Authors SS design Gender CA
Diagnosis/
Functioning Setting Behavior
Newman et al.
(1997)
Multiple baseline
across
participants
(possible
noncontingent)
2/males 12 Autismϩ ID-
DSM-IV
ASD after-school
program
% intervals with
target behavior
1/female 4 -out of seat
6 ASD Preschool
Bedroom
-nail-flicking
Newman et al.
(2000)
Multiple baseline
across
participants
2/males 6/PS AutismϩMID-
DSM-IV
Evan and NancyASD
school Dan
-home
Degree of
variations in
individual
targeted
behaviors
1/female 6
Pierce &
Schriebiman
(1994)
Multiple baseline
across
behaviors
replicated
across three
participants
3/males 8 AutismϩMoID
to SID-
Outside
agency
Clinic room % of 10-s intervals
engaged in ontask
behavior &
inappropriate
behavior
9
6
Reinecke et al.
(1999)
A-B-A-B across
three
participants
3/males 4 AutismϩMID/
MOID (NS)
Preschool (NS) Social and play
skills in the
form of
“sharing”
4
3
Shabani et al.
(2001)
Multiple baseline
across two
behaviors.
1/male 12 Autism ϩ ID
ϩADHD-(NS)
Univ. therapy
room
% of intervals
rocking
Strain &
Kohler
(1994)
Multiple baseline
across
participants
and settings.
3/males 4 AutismϩNS-
DSM-III
Integrated
preschool Small
room Home (2)
% of intervals
engaged in
social
interaction
5
3
Todd & Reid
(2006)
Changing
Criterion
Design across
three
participants
3/ males 16 AutismϩID-
DSM-IV
TEACCH
classroom
Distance
snowshoed/
walked/jogged
20
15
Legend: PS ϭ preschool; ID ϭ intellectual disability; MID ϭ mild intellectual disability; MoID ϭ moderate
intellectual disability; SID ϭ severe intellectual disability; DSM ϭ Diagnostic and Statistical Manual; ADHD ϭ
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder; NS ϭ not specified; SM ϭ self-management procedures
160 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2011
TABLE2
DescriptorsofSelf-ManagementStudiesforindividualswithHFA/AS
AuthorsSSdesignGenderCA
Diagnosis/
FunctioningSettingBehavior
Appleetal.
(2005)
Multiplebaselineacross
students
2/males5HFA/AS(NS)Integratedpreschool
duringfreeplaytime
#ofcomplimentsduring15min.
interval1/female4
Barry&Singer
(2001)
Multiplebaselineacross
behaviors(not
concurrent)
1/male10HFA(NS)Home%ofintervalsinwhich
replacementbehaviorsoccur
Delano(2007)Multiplebaselineacross
responses
1/male12ASDSM-IV-TRConferenceroomin
researchoffice
Totalwordswritten,action
words,describingwords,
revisions,qualityrating
Loftinetal.
(2008)
Multiplebaselineacross
participants
3/males9ASDDSM-IV
ADOS
PublicESlunchand
recessperiods
%ofintervalsofinitiation,
interaction,andrepetitive
motorbehavior
10
10
Morrisonetal.
(2001)
Multiplebaselineacross
behaviors
1/female11ASandHFA
DSM-IV
Separateroomwithin
schoolforfree-time
activity
%ofintervalswithtarget
initiationsofrequests,
commentsandshares
3/males10
13
11
Mruzeketal.
(2007)
Changingcriterion
designreplicated
acrossparticipants
2/males9EDϩADHD&
probableAS
HFA(NS)
Sp.Ed.classroomfor
ASDinruralpublic
elem.school
Meandaily%ofsuccessfulhours
(noruleviolations)10
Palmenetal.
(2008)
Multiplebaselineacross
students
7/males17–25ASDwithno
cognitive
impairments
DSM-IV
Therapyroomfor
baselineandtraining
andNaturaltutorial
conversationlocations
forSM
%Correctquestionsduringa
tutorialconversationand
responseefficiency
2/females
Wehmeyeretal.
(2003)
Multiplebaselineacross
participants
1/male13HFA(NS)PublicH.S.GeneralEd.
classroom
Percentofintervalsof
inappropriatetouchingand
inappropriateverbalization
Legend:PSϭpreschool;IDϭintellectualdisability;MIDϭmildintellectualdisability;MoIDϭmoderateintellectualdisability;SIDϭsevereintellectualdisability;
DSMϭDiagnosticandStatisticalManual;ADHDϭAttentionDeficit/HyperactivityDisorder;NSϭnotspecified;SMϭself-managementprocedures
Self-Management Procedures across the Spectrum / 161
dural fidelity. As interventions become more
complex and more teacher and practitioners
are conducting research in applied settings,
it is important that interventions are implemented
as planned (Gast, 2010). Only 25%
(n ϭ 6) of the studies provided evidence of
procedural fidelity. Half of those took procedural
fidelity data during all conditions
(Delano, 2007; Loftin, Odom, & Lantz, 2008;
Newman, Buffington, & Hemmes, 1996); one
study took procedural fidelity data during
training (Agran et al., 2005); two looked at
fidelity of procedures during the student selfmanagement
phase (Apple, Billingsley, &
Schwarz, 2005; Embregts, Didden, Huitink, &
Schreuder, 2002).
Demographic Variables
Self-management intervention across gender,
age, degree of cognitive impairment, and
training setting were analyzed. Tables 1 and 2
provide a summary of these demographic
variables under “Gender,” “CA,” “Diagnosis/
Functioning,” and “Setting” for each study between
AD and HFA/AS respectively.
Autistic Disorder (AD). Thirty-two male participants
and three female students with AD
received an intervention with components
of self-management. The interventions using
self-management procedures for this population
have been conducted across the spectrum
of age and grade levels. Within the preschool
age range of 3 to 6, four studies included
eight participants (Newman, Tutigian, Ryan,
& Reinecke, 1997; Newman, Reinecke, &
Meinberg, 2000; Reinecke, Newman, & Meinberg,
1999; Strain & Kohler, 1994). Four studies
included nine elementary age children, 6
to 11 years old (Coyle & Cole, 2004; Newman
et al., 1997; Newman et al., 2000; Pierce &
Schreibman, 1994). Seven middle school aged
students, 12 to 15 years old, were participants
in five different studies (Agran et al., 2005;
Embregts et al., 2002; Kern, Marder, Boyajian,
Elliot, & McElhattan, 1997; Mancina, Tankersley,
Kamps, Kravits, & Parrett, 2000; Newman
et al., 1997; Newman et al., 1995; Shabani,
Wilder, & Flood, 2001) and four studies
implemented self-management as an intervention
for eleven high school age adolescents
(Ganz & Sigafoos, 2005; Hughes et al., 2002;
Newman et al., 1995; Newman, Buffington, &
Hemmes, 1996; Todd & Reid, 2006).
Criteria for inclusion included participant
diagnosis of autism with a cognitive impairment.
From the 16 studies reviewed, seven
reported using criteria for diagnosis based a
version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
(Coyle & Cole, 2004; Embregts et al., 2002;
Newman et al., 1995; Newman et al., 1997;
Newman et al., 2000; Strain & Kohler, 1994;
Todd & Reid, 2006). Fourteen of the 16 articles
reported specifically that the participants
had an intellectual disability but only Newman
et al. (1996) reported that the students had a
severe shortage of appropriate conversation
using short one word utterance and were nonresponsive
to direct statements and questions,
and Kern et al. (1997) reported the participant
performing six or more grade levels be-
low.
Ten participants with AD received self-management
intervention at a separate school or
facility for children with a disability. Four students
were taught self-management in a clinic
and two children participated only at home.
Ten students were receiving the treatment in a
public school but received intervention in a
separate special education class. Five participants
received treatment in an inclusive general
education environment with two of those
participants’ intervention also conducted at
home.
High-functioning autism/Asperger syndrome
(HFA/AS). In the eight studies, 20 male and
four female students with HFA/AS received
an intervention with components of self-management.
Interventions using self-management
procedures for this group have been
conducted across the spectrum of age and
grade levels. One study included three preschool
children ages 4 to 5 years old (Apple et
al., 2005). Three studies used self management
as treatment for a total of six elementary
school children ages 9 to 10 (Barry & Singer,
2001; Loftin et al., 2008; Mruzek, Cohen, &
Smith, 2007) and two studies were carried out
with six middle school aged students ranging
from 10 to 13 years old (Delano, 2007; Morrison,
Garcia, Kamps, Parker, & Dunlap, 2001;
Wehmeyer, Yeager, Bolding, Agran, & Hughes,
2003). Lastly, the study by Palmen, Didden,
and Arts (2008) implemented self-manage-
162 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2011
ment with nine young adults ranging in age
from 17 to 25 years.
None of the individuals identified as
HFA/AS were identified as having a cognitive
impairment and only three reported using
criteria for diagnosis based a version of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (Delano,
2007; Loftin et al., 2008; Palmen et al. 2008) to
identify the student with a PDD. The settings
for intervention varied between inclusive classrooms
(Apple et al., 2005; Loftin et al.; Wehmeyer
et al., 2003), separate room for therapy
(Delano; Morrison et al., 2001; Palmen et al.),
a special education class (Mruzek et al., 2007),
and in the home (Barry & Singer, 2001).
Procedural Variables
Procedural variables analyzed included components
of single subject design, procedural
fidelity, data collection, self-management
packages, support materials used, and targeted
autistic-like behaviors. While Tables 1
and 2 show single subject design and dependent
measures, Tables 3 and 4 display target
skill domain and self-management package
components within each study. Common
components of most self-management packages
included: (a) a timer to alert a student
to self-assess, (b) a self-recording form for a
student to document the assessment, and (c) a
desired reward as reinforcement to maintain
the behavior. As these materials are typical for
most self-management programs, they are not
analyzed across studies. Although each study
included an independent variable requiring a
student to participate in the management of
his/her behavior as part of the intervention,
several other components were part of treatment
packages.
AD. Target behaviors to be modified and
maintained using self-management have been
classified into four categories for this review
based on prominent characteristics of AD.
Four studies addressed self-management to
decrease restrictive, repetitive, and stereotyped
behavior patterns (Embregts et al.,
2002; Kern et al., 1997; Mancina et al., 2000;
Newman et al., 1997; Shabani et al., 2001).
Five studies attempted to increase social skills
including play and social interaction (Newman
et al., 2000; Reinecke et al., 1999; Strain
& Kohler, 1994; Todd & Reid, 2006). Only
two studies targeted communication skills.
Hughes et al. (2002) recorded the percentage
opportunities per session in which a participant
said, “Thank you,” to customers during a
cookie sales event, while Newman et al. (1996)
provided treatment to increase appropriate
conversation. Finally, four studies focused on
school/vocational skills including off-task behavior
(Coyle & Cole, 2004), following directions
(Agran et al., 2005), task completion
(Ganz & Sigafoos, 2005), transitioning (Newman
et al., 1995), and daily living skills (Pierce
& Schreibman, 1994).
Self-management packages included selfmonitoring,
self-recording, and self-reinforcement
in five of the 16 studies (40%). Five
studies did not include self-recording but only
required students to self-monitor and selfreinforce.
Agran et al. (2005), Kern et al.
(1997), and Newman et al. (1996) excluded
self-reinforcement using solely self-monitoring
and self-recording. Lastly, Hughes et al.
(2002), required participants to self-monitor
alone. Seven studies incorporated a token
economy as reinforcement. Coyle and Cole
(2004) and Embregts et al. (2002) used video
to enhance the procedure through video
modeling desired behavior and video selfrecording
respectively. Two studies used peer
training as a part of social skill intervention
while the participants self-monitored
(Reinecke et al., 1999; Shabani et al., 2001).
Pictures were incorporated as prompts in
Coyle and Cole (2004) and Pierce and
Schreibman (1994). No studies of self-management
within the AD population used contracts
as a component of the package.
Data were systematically collected during
each study with half (n ϭ 8) using an interval
recording procedure. Seven studies (44%)
used event recording procedures to measure
behavior change. Kern et al. (1997) used total
duration of occurrence recording procedure
to calculate percent of time a student engaged
in inappropriate vocalizations. In self-management
programs, interventionists often collect
data on dependent measures differently than
student self-recording. Eight researchers (50%)
used a different method of data collection. Of
those that used the same recording procedures
five (31%) used event recording and
three (19%) quantified behavior changes with
interval recording procedures. Agran et al.
Self-Management Procedures across the Spectrum / 163
(2005) and Hughes et al. (2002) did not incorporate
self-recording into their self-management
treatment package. Embregts et al.
(2002) required students to record their behavior
using a 20 s to 30 s whole interval
recording procedure, while the data were collected
using a 15 s partial interval recording
procedure. Kern et al. measured treatment
effects using total duration recording of vocalization.
Three studies evaluated behavior
change with interval recording while students
self-recorded frequency of the target behavior
TABLE 3
Comparison of Self-Management Treatment Package and Skill Addressed–AD
Self-Management Components Behavior Addressed
Self-monitoring
Self-recording
Self-reinforcement
Self-initiation
PeerTraining
Contract
TokenEconomy
Pictures
Video
RestrictiveBehaviorPatterns
SocialSkills
Communication
School/VocationalSkills
Agran et al.
(2005) x x x
Coyle & Cole
(2004) x x x x x x
Embregts (2002) x x x x x x
Ganz & Sigafoos
(2005) x x x x x
Hughes et al.
(2002) x x
Kern et al.
(1997) x x x x
Mancina et al.
(2000) x x x x x
Newman et al.
(1995) x x x x
Newman et al.
(1996) x x x
Newman et al.
(1997) x x x x
Newman et al.
(2000) x x x x
Pierce &
Schriebiman
(1994) x x x x x
Reinecke et al.
(1999) x x x x x
Shabani et al.
(2001) x x x x
Strain & Kohler
(1994) x x x x x
Todd & Reid
(2006) x x x x x
Percentage 100% 56.25% 75% 25% 12.5% 0% 43.75% 13.3% 12.25% 25% 31.25% 12.5% 31.25%
164 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2011
using event recording (Newman et al., 1996;
Pierce & Schriebiman, 1994; Reinecke et al.,
1999).
HFA/AS. Restricted interests, social skills,
communication, and academic skills were the
four behavior categories targeted for those
with HFA/AS characteristics. The majority of
the studies using self-management for students
with HFA/AS targeted social skills including
complimenting (Apple et al., 2005),
interacting appropriately with a baby sibling
(Barry & Singer, 2001), initiating (Morrison et
al., 2001), and decreasing hugging (Wehmeyer,
2003). Loftin et al. (2008) addressed
restrictive behavior patterns (e.g., rocking)
and Palmen et al. (2008) addressed communication.
Delano (2007) and Mruzek et al.
(2007) addressed school related skills.
Seven of the eight investigations (88%)
used all three components of self-management:
self-monitoring, self recording, and selfreinforcement.
Delano (2007) was the only
study that did not incorporate a self-recording
component; rather here the student monitored
his following of structured editing process
for writing and self-reinforced upon completion.
Other materials were incorporated
into the self-management packages. Mruzek
et al. (2007) and Barry and Singer (2001)
utilized a contract as a goal-setting component
of self-management. Two of the studies reviewed
included simple visual cues to selfmanage
a behavior (Newman et al., 1996; Palmen
et al., 2008), while Morrison et al. (2001)
used games and social skills charts to guide
the students as a group and laminated monitoring
charts on which students self-recorded.
Similarly, Palmen et al. provided a flow chart
to guide student conversations and a simple
chart to self-record positive and negative attempts
of questioning in the conversation.
Two studies included peer training to support
TABLE 4
Comparison of Self-Management Treatment Package and Skill Addressed–HFA/AS
Self-Management Components Behavior Addressed
Self-monitoring
Self-recording
Self-reinforcement
Self-initiation
PeerTraining
Contract
TokenEconomy
Pictures
Video
RestrictiveBehaviorPatterns
SocialSkills
Communication
School/VocationalSkills
Apple et al.
(2005) x x x x x
Barry & Singer
(2001) x x x x x
Delano (2007) x x x
Loftin et al.
(2008) x x x x x
Morrison et al.
(2001) x x x x x x
Mruzek et al.
(2007) x x x x x
Palmen et al.
(2008) x x x x
Wehmeyer et al.
(2003) x x x x x
Percentage 100% 75% 87.5% 12.5% 25% 25% 12.5% 25% 12.5% 12.5% 50% 12.5% 25%
Self-Management Procedures across the Spectrum / 165
the self-management program (Loftin et al.,
2008; Morrison et al.).
Researcher dependent variable measurement
systems were the same as students with
HFA/AS self-recording in three (31%) of the
eight studies (Apple et al., 2005; Delano, 2007;
Mruzek et al., 2007). The remaining studies
required students to self-record using event
recording where the researcher used interval
recording procedures.
Outcomes
Self-management procedures were successful
in increasing target behaviors for students
with ASD.
AD. Self-management procedures increased
target behaviors for students with AD.
A total of 16 research studies met the original
search criteria. All 35 participants using a version
of self-management improved and maintained
targeted skills. Four of the studies formally
collected social validity (Wolf, 1978)
data using questionnaires and rating forms.
The participant with AD in Hughes et al.
(2002) made noticeable significant gains in
saying “thank you” to customers using selfmanagement
as perceived by a peer and
teacher. Both peer and teacher also confirmed
that they enjoyed being around the
student with AD more after the positive effects
of self-management. Kern et al. (1997) reported
that school staff perceived self-management
as easy to implement and effective in a
short duration of time while not being distracting
to students. Embregts et al. (2002)
reported that video feedback and student selfmanagement
was a non-obtrusive and nonconfrontational
method of changing behavior.
Staff reported that self-management
produced substantial changes in aggressive behavior
of four of five individuals including the
student with autism.
HFA/AS. Self-management procedures resulted
in increased target behaviors and independence
in treatment for 23 of 26 participants.
Three out of nine participants in the
Palmen et al. (2008) study made gains of 4 to
12 percent of appropriate questions and responses
made during a conversation. Otherwise,
the range of percent increase of baseline
mean to intervention mean in this study was
23 to 96. The independent variable in Palmen
et al. was a game format with individuals using
a flowchart to self-observe and move tokens
on a game board as a form of self-recording.
Intervention could not be staggered across
participants as they were all involved in the
intervention simultaneously. Although the
self-management intervention was replicated
across two more groups of three, it was considered
a nonconcurrent multiple baseline
decreasing the internal validity (Gast, 2010).
Palmen et al. was the only study on selfmanagement
for adolescents with HFA/AS.
All other studies involved 4- year-old to 13year-old
children with HFA/AS.
Five of the eight studies using self-management
to change behavior in HFA/AS reported
social validity. Loftin et al. (2008) used IEP’s
to determine target behaviors; teachers and
parents gave positive reviews of the goals of
treatment, procedures and outcomes. Apple
et al. (2005) collected social validity information
using parent and teacher reports indicating
a perception of increase in general social
skills by three of four participants and generalization
to nontraining settings after selfmanagement
to increase complement-giving
behaviors. Palmen et al. (2008) reported selfmanagement
as a socially valid intervention to
increase conversation skills in adolescents
with HFA/AS. Both student participants and
coaches found the training effective and acceptable,
while meaningful increases in conversation
generalized to the natural contexts.
Wehmeyer et al. (2003) stated that teacher
perceptions of student progress using the selfmanagement
were more than expected. Barry
and Singer (2001) found replacing the aggressive
behavior of a child with autism toward an
infant sibling socially valid. Self-management
changed potentially dangerous behaviors and
parents reported that siblings had developed a
good relationship. This indicates that future
research might examine improved impact on
sibling relationships on parents and other
family members.
Discussion
The belief that all individuals have the right to
direct their own lives through the choices they
make has been emphasized in Individuals with
Disabilities Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004).
Self-determination skills indicate a more suc-
166 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2011
cessful transition to adulthood (Wehmeyer et
al., 2003). As a critical component of selfdetermination,
self-management should be
taught to students with an ASD. As implied by
literature on self-determination (Wehmeyer,
1999), research in the area of learning disabilities
and behavior disorders shows that techniques
to increase self-management are successful
for changing behavior in higher
functioning individuals with well-established
verbal language. The current review indicates
that individuals with HFA/AS effectively used
self-management procedures to address deficits
related to the core characteristics of ASD.
Furthermore, added technologies were helpful
adaptations to typical self-management
procedures (e.g., tokens, pictures, video) to
make the interventions viable with lower-functioning
individuals with AD.
Children with ASD specifically have been
found to have difficulty “directing, controlling,
inhibiting, maintaining, and generalizing
behaviors required for adjustment both in and
outside of the classroom without external support
and structure from others” (Wilkinson,
2008, p. 151). Attention should be drawn to
the fact that self-management procedures focus
on behaviors already in a student’s repertoire,
behaviors where differential reinforcement
and other interventions alone have not
been sufficient to maintain the behavior in
inclusive settings. An examination of the
methodological adequacy, demographics, and
procedures found in 24 single subject research
design studies was used to evaluate selfmanagement
procedures for teaching skills to
students with an ASD. Data show that across
participants, settings, or behaviors, self-management
interventions resulted in improvements
in desired behaviors.
Future Research
While self-management procedures have been
used across all age groups for youth, there are
gaps in the literature. Tables 3 and 4 display
skills addressed using self-management by
individuals with AD and HFA/AS. Analyses of
these data suggest that future research should
focus on the effectiveness of self-management
procedures for increasing communication
skills in people with ASD. It is also essential
that researchers begin to focus on specific
components of self-management programs to
evaluate each component’s relative contribution
to program effectiveness. Most importantly,
future research should evaluate methods
for taking self-management procedures
into the homes of children with ASD. Studies
in the present literature review indicate that
students tend to remain reliant on self-management
procedures and materials. Researchers
need to investigate making the materials
and equipment as unobtrusive as possible so
they can be generalized to home and community
environments and not draw attention to
the individual. Examining the use of a Personal
Digital Assistant (PDA) as a tool for
self-management for individuals with ASD has
potential. For individuals with HFA/AS,
PDA’s require little training while enabling
technologically adept students to emit target
behavior and become more independent
(Ferguson, Myles, & Hagiwara, 2005; Myles,
Ferguson, & Hagiwara, 2007). Further research
on the use of PDA’s across age and
cognitive levels of individuals on the spectrum
is needed.
Limitations of Self-management Research
Effects of self-management procedures as an
intervention to increase target behaviors, independence,
and generalization of skills for
people with autism are limited due to confounding
variables. Controlling for various
components of the self-management package
is difficult. As seen in Tables 3 and 4, each
study included various self-management components.
It is difficult to make comparisons of
effectiveness when treatment packages vary,
and it would be premature to say that any
specific component of self-management is the
primary cause of behavior change. Also, most
of self-management procedures were implemented
with an existing positive reinforcement
procedure. Although some studies attempted
to control for reinforcement as a
confounding variable by applying noncontingent
reinforcement before self-management,
the contingency of reinforcement itself then
became confounding. Was contingent reinforcement
simply more powerful than noncontingent
reinforcement?
Procedural fidelity data and social validity
of treatment were limited in use across the
Self-Management Procedures across the Spectrum / 167
24 articles reviewed on self-management as an
intervention. Procedural fidelity issues may
not have been of primary concern since selfmanagement
is “driven” by the student, not
the practitioner. In terms of social validity,
self-management procedures have been well
established throughout the research over
many years (Cooper et al., 2007). Eleven of
the 24 articles reviewed included a measure of
social validity specific to the self-management
procedure and effect implemented. The results
of such measures were all positive in
regard to the acceptability and feasibility of
the procedures.
Generalization of the treatment into the
home was seldom assessed with home implementation
in four out of 24 studies (17%)
with only four of 35 individuals with AD
(11%) and one of 24 individuals with HFA/AS
(4%). Educators should be encouraged to
teach parents to use interventions at home
to increase skills taught in school (Heflin &
Alberto, 2001).
Research to Practice
There is an increasing awareness that students
with an ASD require an intervention approach
that addresses not only academic and vocational
skills, but one that addresses the three
core deficits that characterize the disorder.
Figure 1 compares ASD core characteristic
addressed by self-management studies included
in this review. The defining characteristic
impacting independence in individuals
with ASD is social impairment (Heflin &
Alaimo, 2006). For this reason it is not surprising
that self-management has been widely
used to increase social skills, however, data
show that an individualized self-management
program may be effective in behavior change
across all ASD core characteristics.
Self-management has three primary components:
self-monitoring, self-recording, and
self reinforcement/punishment. Self-monitoring
was basic to all interventions reviewed.
Tables 3 and 4 show that combinations of
self-monitoring and (a) self-recording (b) selfreinforcement
or (c) both, while incorporating
additional components (e.g., peer training,
contracts, token economy, pictures, and
video), were individual to each study. Social
validity data supported the individualized
nature and meaningful outcomes these treatment
packages provided. Teachers and parFigure
1. Comparison of percent of studies that used self-management procedures to address core deficits
of ASD and school or vocational skills and a second comparison between AD and HFA/AS.
168 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2011
ents should feel confident that, when appropriately
implemented and individualized for
the student needs, self-management can be
an effective, unobtrusive intervention strategy
within the least restrictive environment.
Self-management interventions are easy to
design, simple to use, potentially portable,
and practical for teachers. It has been asserted
that self-management is a pivotal skill that can
generalize behaviors, support autonomy, and
produce behavioral improvements across various
contexts for children with ASD (Koegel
et al., 1999). Based on this idea and current
literature presenting self-management as a viable
procedure, practical use of self-management
procedures is recommended for fostering
independence and inclusion of people
with ASD.
References
Agran, M., Sinclair, T., Alper, S., Cavin, M., Wehmeyer,
M., & Hughes, C. (2005). Using selfmonitoring
to increase following-direction skills
of students with moderate to severe disabilities in
general education. Education and Training in Developmental
Disabilities, 40, 3–13.
Agran, M., Snow, K., & Swaner, J. (1999). Teacher
perceptions and self-determination: Benefits,
characteristics, strategies. Education and Training
in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,
34, 293–301.
American Psychiatric Association.(1980). Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (3rd ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association.(1994). Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (4th ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association.(2000). Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (4th ed.
Text Revision). Washington, DC: Author.
Apple, L. A., Billingsley, F., & Schwartz, I. (2005).
Effects of video modeling alone and with selfmanagement
on compliment-giving behaviors of
children with high-functioning ASD. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 33–46.
Barry, L., & Singer, G. (2001). A family in crisis:
Replacing the aggressive behavior of a child with
autism toward an infant sibling. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 3, 28–38.
Billingsly, F., White, O. R., & Munson R. (1980).
Procedural reliability: A rationale and example.
Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.
Campbell, J. M. (2006). Changing children’s attitudes
toward autism: A process of persuasive communication.
Journal of Developmental and Physical
Disabilities, 18, 251–272.
Campbell, J. M., & Morgan, S. B. (1998). Asperger’s
disorder. In L. Phelps (Ed.), Health-related disorders
in children and adolescents (pp. 68–73). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Center for Disease Control. (2007). Autism Information
Center. Retrieved from Web site: http://www.
cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/symptoms.htm
Cole, C., & Bambara, L. (1992). Issues surrounding
the use of self-management interventions in the
schools. School Psychology Review, 21, 193–202.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L.
(2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Coyle, C., & Cole, P. (2004). A videotaped selfmodeling
and self-monitoring treatment program
to decrease off-task behavior in children with autism.
Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability,
29, 3–15.
Delano, M. (2007). Improving written language performance
of adolescents with Asperger syndrome.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 345–351.
Embregts, P., Didden, R., Huitink, C., & Schreuder,
N. (2009). Contextual variables affecting aggressive
behavior in individuals with mild to borderline
intellectual disabilities who live in a residential
facility. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research,
53, 255–264.
Ferguson, H., Myles, B., & Hagiwara, T. (2005).
Using a Personal Digital Assistant to Enhance the
Independence of an Adolescent with Asperger
Syndrome. Education and Training in Developmental
Disabilities, 40, 60–67.
Ganz, J. B., & Sigafoos, J. (2005). Self-monitoring:
Are young adults with MR and autism able to
utilize cognitive strategies independently? Education
and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40,
24–33.
Gast, D. L. (Ed.).(2010). Single subject research methodology
in behavioral sciences. New York: Routledge.
Gast, D. L., & Hammond, D. (2010). Withdrawal
and reversal designs. In D. L. Gast (Ed.), Single
subject research methodology in behavioral sciences (pp.
234–275). New York: Routledge.
Gast, D. L. & Ledford, J. (2010). Multiple baseline
and multiple probe designs. In D. L. Gast (Ed.),
Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences
(pp. 276–328). New York: Routledge.
Happe´, F., Booth, R., Charlton, R., & Hughes, C.
(2006). Executive function deficits in autism spectrum
disorders and attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder: Examining profiles across domains
and ages. Brain & Cognition, 61, 25–39.
Heflin, J. L. & Alberto, P. A. (2001). Establishing a
behavioral context for learning with students with
autism. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities,
16, 93-101.
Self-Management Procedures across the Spectrum / 169
Heflin, J. L., & Alaimo, D. (2006). Autism spectrum
disorders: Effective instructional practices. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hughes, C., Copeland, S. R., Agran, M., Wehmeyer,
M., L., Rodi, M. S., & Presley, J. A. (2002). Using
self-monitoring to improve performance in general
education high school classes. Education and
Training in Mental Retardation Developmental Disabilities,
37, 262–272.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004)
(reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act of 1990).
Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective
contact. Nervous Child, 2, 217–250.
Kanner, L. (1985). Autistic disturbances of affective
contact. In A. Donnellan (Ed.), Classic readings in
autism (pp. 11–52). New York: Teacher’s College
Press. (Reprinted from Nervous Child, 2, 217-250,
1943).
Kern, L., Marder, T. J., Boyajian, A., Elliot, C. M., &
McElhattan, D. (1997). Augmenting the independence
of self-management procedures by teaching
self-initiation across settings and activities.
School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 23–32.
Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L., Hurley, C., & Frea,
W. D. (1992). Improving social skills and disruptive
behavior in children with autism through
self-management. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
25, 341–353.
Koegel, L., Koegel, R., Harrower, J., & Carter, C.
(1999). Pivotal response intervention: Overview
of approach. Journal of the Association for Persons
with Severe Handicaps, 24, 174–185.
Lee, S., Simpson, R., & Shoran, K. (2007). Effects
and implications of self-management for students
with autism: A meta-analysis. Focus on Autism &
Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 2–13.
Loftin, R., Odom, S., & Lantz, J. (2008). Social
interaction and repetitive motor behaviors. Journal
of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 38, 1124–
1135.
Macintosh, K. E., & Dissanayake, C. (2004). Annotation:
The similarities and differences between
autistic disorder and Asperger’s disorder: A review
of the empirical evidence. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 421–434.
Mancina, C., Tankersley, M., Kamps, D., Kravits, T.,
& Parrett, J. (2000). Brief report: Reduction of
inappropriate vocalizations for a child with autism
using a self-management treatment program.
Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders,
30, 599.
Morrison, L., Kamps, D., Garcia, J., Parker, D., &
Dunlap, G. (2001). Peer mediation and monitoring
strategies to improve initiation and social
skills for students with autism. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 3, 237.
Mruzek, D., Cohen, C., & Smith, T. (2007). Contingency
contracting with students with autism spectrum
disorders in a public school setting. Journal
of Developmental & Physical disabilities, 19, 103–114.
Myles, B., Ferguson, H., & Hagiwara, T. (2007).
Using a personal digital assistant to improve the
recording of homework assignments by an adolescent
with asperger syndrome. Focus on Autism
and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 96–99.
Myles, B. S., & Southwick, J. (1999). Asperger syndrome
and difficult moments: Practical solutions for
tantrums, rage, and meltdowns. Shawnee Mission,
Kansas: Autism Asperger Publishing Co.
Newman, B., Buffington, D. M., & Hemmes, N. S.
(1996). Self-reinforcement used to increase the
appropriate conversation of autistic teenagers. Education
and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilities, 31, 304–309.
Newman, B., Buffington, D. M., O’Grady, M. A.,
McDonald, M. E., Poulson, C. L., & Hemmes,
N. S. (1995). Self-management of schedule following
in three teenagers with autism. Behavioral
Disorders, 10, 190–196.
Newman, B., Reinecke, D. R., & Meinberg, D. L.
(2000). Self-management of varied responding in
three students with autism, Behavioral Intervention,
15, 145–151.
Newman, B., Tuntigian, L., Ryan, C., & Reinecke, D.
(1997). Self-management of a DRO procedure
by three students with autism. Behavioral Interventions,
12, 149–156.
Ozonoff, S., & Rogers, S (2003). From Kanner to
the millennium: Scientific advances that have
shaped clinical practice. In Ozonoff, S., Rogers,
S., & Hendron, R. L. (Eds.), Autism spectrum disorders:
A research review for practitioners (pp. 3–36).
Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing,
Inc.
Ozonoff, S., Rogers, S., & Hendron, R. L. (2003).
Autism spectrum disorders: A research review for practitioners.
Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing,
Inc.
Palmen, A., Didden, R., & Arts, M. (2008). Improving
question asking in high-functioning adolescents
with autism spectrum disorders. Autism: The
International Journal of Research & Practice, 12, 83–
98.
Pierce, K. L., & Schreibman, L. (1994). Teaching
daily living skills to children with autism in unsupervised
settings through pictorial self-management.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 471–
481.
Prater, M., & Hogan, S. (1992). Using self-monitoring
to improve of-task behavior and academic
skills of an adolescent with mild. Education &
Treatment of Children, 15, 43–58.
Reinecke, D. R., Newman, B., & Meinberg, D. L.
(1999). Self-management of sharing in three pre-
170 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2011
schoolers with autism. Education and Training in
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,
34, 312–317.
Rimland, B. (1985). The etiology of infantile autism:
The problem of biological versus psychological
causation. In A. Donnellan (Ed.), Classic readings
in autism (pp. 84–104). New York: Teacher’s
College Press. (Reprinted from Infantile autism,
pp. 39–66, by B. P. Rimland, 1964, New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts).
Scheuermann, B., & Webber, J. (2002). Autism:
Teaching does make a difference. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Thompson Learning.
Shabani, D., Wilder, D., & Flood, W. (2001). Reducing
stereotypic behavior through discrimination
training, differential reinforcement of other behavior,
and self-monitoring. Behavioral Interventions,
16, 279–286.
Shapiro, H. (1981). Implementing P.L. 94-142 in
the high school: A successful in-service training
model. Education, 102, 47–52.
Strain, P., & Kohler, F. (1994). Teaching preschoolers
with autism to self-monitor their social interactions:
An analysis of results in home and school
settings. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders,
2, 78–92.
Thede, L. L., & Coolidge, F. L. (2007). Psychological
and neurobehavioral comparisons of children
with Asperger’s disorder versus high-functioning
autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
37, 847–854.
Todd, T., & Reid, G. (2006). Increasing physical
activity in individuals with autism. Focus on Autism
and Other Developmental Disabilities, 21, 167–176.
Volkmar, F. R., & Klin, A. (2005). Issues in the
classification of autism and related conditions. In
Volkmar, F. R., Rhea, P., Ami, K., & Cohen, D.
(Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental
disorders volume one (pp. 5–41). New Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Wehmeyer, M. (1999). A functional model of selfdetermination:
Describing development and implementing
instruction. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 14, 53-61.
Wehmeyer, M., Yeager, D., Bolding, N., Agran, M.,
& Hughes, C. (2003). The effects of self-regulation
strategies on goal attainment for students
with developmental disabilities in general education
classrooms. Journal of Developmental & Physical
Disabilities, 15, 79–91.
Wilkinson, L. (2005). Supporting the inclusion of
a student with Asperger syndrome: A case study
using conjoint behavioral consultation and selfmanagement.
Educational Psychology in Practice, 21,
307–326.
Wilkinson, L. (2008). Self-Management for children
with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders.
Intervention in School & Clinic, 43, 150–157.
Wing, L. (1981). Asperger’s disorder: A clinical account.
Psychological Medicine, 11, 115–129.
Witwer, A. N., & Lecavalier, L. (2008). Examining
the validity of autism spectrum disorder subtypes.
Journal of Autism Developmental Disorders, 38, 1611–
1624.
Wolery, M., & Lane, K. L. (2010). Writing tasks:
Literature reviews, research proposals, and final
reports. In D. L. Gast (Ed.), Single subject research
methodology in behavioral sciences (pp. 57–90). New
York: Routledge.
Wolf, M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective
measurement or how applied behavior analysis
is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 11, 203–214.
Received: 11 January 2010
Initial Acceptance: 15 March 2010
Final Acceptance: 10 June 2010
Self-Management Procedures across the Spectrum / 171