Understanding Echoics: Identifying Predictive Indicators of Vocal Imitation

Many early ABA programs rely on echoic prompts to teach language skills—but some children with autism don’t echo, even with consistent effort. When a child can’t imitate speech, clinical teams often struggle to decide what to teach first and how to prompt without creating repeated failure. This study offers practical guidance by identifying which early skills tend to appear alongside echoic ability, helping clinicians set smarter priorities from the start.

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

Many early ABA programs use echoic prompts to teach other language skills. But some children with autism do not echo, even when staff try hard. When a child cannot echo, teams often get stuck deciding what to teach first and how to prompt without pushing the child into repeated failure.

This study asked a simple planning question: on the first VB-MAPP, what other early skills go along with having at least a small echoic repertoire? If we can spot patterns, clinicians can set better priorities at intake—and pick early targets more likely to support speech imitation, without assuming every learner will learn echoics the same way.

What did the researchers do to answer that question?

The researchers reviewed charts from 118 young children with autism who started early intensive behavioral intervention at one outpatient clinic. They used each child’s first VB-MAPP (Level 1 only), taken right when services began. RBTs administered the assessments with BCBA supervision, and the clinic scored them using standard VB-MAPP rules.

The main outcome was “echoic present or not present.” Using the Early Echoic Skills Assessment (EESA), part of the VB-MAPP, they set a cut score: children who scored 5 or more points were counted as having an echoic repertoire; children below 5 were not. Logistic regression tested which Level 1 domains (plus age and sex) best predicted being in the “echoic present” group.

Three VB-MAPP Level 1 domains were linked with higher odds of having echoics at intake: Mand, Spontaneous Vocal Behavior (vocal play and varied sounds during observation), and Motor Imitation. Other domains—tact, listener responding, VP-MTS, play, and social—were not strong predictors in this dataset. Because this was a prediction study, not a treatment study, it cannot show that training these skills will cause echoics to emerge.

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

When a new learner has weak or absent echoics on the first assessment, don’t treat that as a dead end or a reason to drill echoics harder right away. Use it as a cue to look closely at three areas that often travel with early echoics: mands, spontaneous vocal behavior, and motor imitation.

Your intake plan can include direct teaching and daily routines that build these skills while you keep echoic opportunities available in a low-pressure way. The main takeaway: set early priorities that reduce repeated failure and increase the learner’s reasons and chances to vocalize and imitate.

Start by checking what the VB-MAPP “Mand” score really means for that child. A higher mand score was linked with higher odds of echoics in this review, but the important clinical point isn’t the number—it’s whether the child can reliably get needs met with a simple, safe response that a listener honors.

If mands are weak, build a strong mand system first, using the child’s best mode (vocal, sign, picture, SGD, or mixed). Keep dignity in mind: mands are not “compliance.” They are communication that should work quickly for the child.

While building mands, notice how you prompt. If the child has near-zero echoics, heavy echoic prompting may create frustration and escape-maintained behavior around speaking tasks. Instead, arrange many quick wins where the child contacts reinforcement for communicating—even if it’s not vocal yet.

Add gentle vocal models as optional “bonus” input, not as a requirement to access everything. If the child begins to vocalize during motivated moments, you can start shaping those vocalizations without turning the session into constant correction.

Next, treat “Spontaneous Vocal Behavior” as a real treatment target, not just an assessment score. In this study, more vocal play and varied sounds at intake were linked with greater odds of having some echoics.

Clinically, this means you should plan daily times where vocal sounds are likely and safe: silly sound games, songs with pauses, sound effects during play, or routines with predictable turns. Reinforce attempts that are close enough for that learner, and keep the bar realistic. A child who is quiet at intake may need pairing, fun interaction, and time before you see their true vocal range.

Be careful not to confuse “more sound” with “more learning” in every case. Some learners have high rates of vocal stereotypy that don’t function as communication. The study did not separate vocal play from stereotypy in a functional way; it used the VB-MAPP vocal domain score.

In practice, take brief ABC data or simple samples to tell the difference between vocal behavior that can be shaped toward communication and vocal behavior that is mostly automatic and disruptive to learning. Your plan may include teaching an alternative response, arranging competing activities, or changing task demands—but don’t assume stereotypy will turn into echoics on its own.

Then look hard at motor imitation, because it was another predictor in this dataset. If a learner doesn’t copy body movements, it may be harder to get reliable copying of speech sounds.

You can build a generalized imitation repertoire with fun, short, high-success games: clap, tap, shake, big movements, actions with objects, and simple sequences. Keep reinforcement strong and sessions playful. Avoid long error-correction chains that make imitation aversive. If imitation improves, you can test whether echoic responding becomes easier to shape for that specific learner.

Use these results for prioritizing, not for deciding a child “can’t” learn echoics. The study was a chart review from one clinic and used one intake assessment point. Intake testing can under-score skills if the child is anxious, not paired with staff, tired, or not used to the setting.

Also, the predictors were correlated with each other, so don’t treat “mands cause echoics” as a proven fact. The safest clinical move is to treat manding, vocal play, and motor imitation as strong early foundations to build anyway—because they improve access to reinforcement, interaction, and learning opportunities even if echoics stay limited.

Finally, make room for nonvocal communication and choice. Many children in similar clinics use SGDs later, and having an AAC system doesn’t mean you stop working on speech. But don’t delay functional communication while you wait for echoics to appear.

A practical approach is “communication first, speech supported”: teach a reliable way to communicate now, and layer in vocal and imitation goals as the learner shows readiness and comfort. This keeps the program humane and effective—and matches what the data can support without overpromising outcomes.

Works Cited

Mason, L., Bolds, A., Gavagan, M., & Ninness, C. (2025). Understanding echoics: Identifying predictive indicators of vocal imitation. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 41, 84–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-024-00213-7