A Review of the Environmental Variables Included in Mand Training Interventions

Teaching children to mand—to ask for what they want or need—is foundational work in early intervention. But which parts of a mand training program actually matter? This review examines the research on mand training for preschoolers, identifying common procedural components and highlighting gaps that affect everyday clinical practice.

What is the research question being asked and why does it matter?

This review asked a straightforward but important question: when researchers teach preschool children to mand, what components do they actually use, and are there any “must-haves” that show up consistently?

This matters because mand programs often include a mix of steps—preference checks, motivating operation set-ups, prompts, and prompt fading. If we don’t know which parts are doing the real work, it’s easy to build plans that are overly complicated, ineffective, or not respectful of the child’s needs.

The review also addressed a second issue that affects day-to-day practice: even if a child learns to say or select a word during teaching, is it really a mand? A true mand happens because the child wants something right then, and it leads to getting that specific thing. If a “mand” is actually controlled by prompts or by seeing the item, it may not show up when it counts—at home, at school, or in the community.

This matters for dignity and quality of life. When mand training is done well, children gain more control over their world and may rely less on problem behavior to get help, access items, or end something they dislike. When done poorly, children end up practicing words that don’t help them, or they learn to wait for adults to prompt them before communicating.

What did the researchers do to answer that question?

The authors conducted a systematic review of single-case studies that taught manding to children ages 3 to 6. They searched databases for studies using the word “mand” that directly measured manding across study phases. They excluded studies focused on functional communication training because those center on reducing problem behavior, not building a mand repertoire.

They screened studies for research quality using the What Works Clearinghouse single-case standards. Only studies meeting these standards (with or without reservations) were included. That left 45 studies with 118 participants and 109 cases to review.

For each participant, they coded what the intervention included: when preference was assessed, how motivation was handled, whether behavioral indication (like reaching) was used, what antecedent cues were present, what consequence was delivered, what prompts were used, and how prompts were faded. They also coded whether studies checked generalization, maintenance, social validity, and procedural integrity.

They then visually analyzed the graphs to determine whether the intervention likely caused increases in manding. About three out of four cases showed evidence of a functional relation, but a large portion of the wider mand-training literature did not meet quality standards and was excluded.

How you can use this in your day-to-day clinical practice

Build your mand targets from “right now” motivation, not last week’s preferences. In many studies, preference was assessed only before baseline or before the intervention started—not right before teaching. In real life, a child’s interests change fast. If you’re prompting a mand for something the child no longer wants, you risk teaching a response that functions more like compliance than communication. Your team should do quick, repeatable preference checks close to session time and be ready to swap items when interest drops.

Treat “motivation present” as something to verify, not assume. Many interventions either assumed motivation or created it by withholding or interrupting access. Those steps can work, but they can also miss the point: a child might comply with prompts without truly wanting the item, especially with a long history of adult-led teaching. Look for clear signs the child is already trying to get the item—reaching, searching, or using an existing way to request. If those signs aren’t there, pause and reconsider whether it’s the right moment for mand trials.

Plan for prompt control and item-in-sight control. Most children in this review were taught to mand while the item was visible or after an adult said something like “What do you want?” That can create a response that works only in teaching. Assume early mands may need extra help, but your plan must include a clear path to independence. Fade verbal cues, reduce the “item on display” set-up, and teach mands during real routines when the item isn’t already in view.

Make prompt fading a required part of your written protocol. About a quarter to a third of participants were in studies where prompt fading wasn’t described. Even if manding increases during sessions, you may accidentally build a prompt-dependent learner if fading isn’t planned and tracked. Choose a fading plan your staff can run correctly, define what counts as independent versus prompted, and supervise the details—like whether staff wait long enough before prompting.

Check that the response functions as a true mand. Most studies didn’t measure whether the child actually used or engaged with the item after manding. You don’t need complicated methods to improve on this. Add a simple correspondence check: after the mand, does the child take the item and engage with it? If the child repeatedly requests and then drops, refuses, or walks away, treat that as information. It may mean the response is under other control, the reinforcer is wrong, or the motivation isn’t present.

Teach “when to ask” as well as “how to ask.” Some stronger examples of true mand control came from studies that taught under both EO and AO conditions, mostly for mands for information. You can apply this simply: set up moments where the question is useful and moments where it isn’t, and reinforce only when it makes sense. For example, teach “where?” when the item is missing, and don’t reinforce “where?” when the item is already in hand.

Broaden mand types beyond “I want cookie”—but do it carefully. Most children in this review were taught to request tangibles or edibles. Very few were taught to mand for removal of something aversive. In practice, children need ways to say “no,” “stop,” “break,” “help,” and “all done” before problem behavior becomes their best tool. When teaching escape mands, honor the communication when safe and teach alternatives when it isn’t. The research base here is still small, so be conservative and rely on close monitoring.

Don’t overgeneralize these findings. Even within the included studies, not all cases showed clear functional relations, and many studies failed basic quality standards. Most participants were preschoolers with ASD, and most interventions were run by researchers in clinics rather than parents at home. Use this review as a checklist for better programming, not as proof that any one package works for every learner.

If you change only a few things after reading this, make them these: check preference closer to teaching, verify motivation through learner behavior, write a real prompt-fading plan, and track whether the child actually wants and uses what they asked for. Those steps fit everyday settings and directly address the biggest gaps in this literature.

Works Cited

McCammon, M. N., Wolfe, K., & Check, A. R. (2024). A review of the environmental variables included in mand training interventions. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 40, 345–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-024-00211-9