While the population of ASD presents with tremendous heterogeneity, there are common characteristics and challenges that compromise the development of critical social communication skills and interfere with social communicative competence (ASHA 2006). Regardless of an individual’s cognitive abilities or learning style differences, individuals with ASD face core challenges with establishing shared attention (i.e., joint attention) and therefore predicting the actions of social partners (Volkmar et al. 2004). When an individual has difficulty predicting the actions of one’s social partners, the development of social communication can be compromised. Core challenges in social communication have been noted with respect to joint attention, including difficulties with social orienting, establishing shared attention, monitoring emotional states, and considering another’s intentions. In addition, limitations in social reciprocity have been noted, including difficulties with initiating bids for interaction, maintaining interactions by taking turns, and providing contingent responses to bids for interaction initiated by others. If one has difficulty predicting the actions of another, predicting that others can be a source of engagement, assistance, and comfort may be compromised, reducing the individual’s overall rate of spontaneous bids for communication. Challenges in social communication have also been noted with respect to an individual’s symbol use or language and related cognitive skills (e.g., understanding and using nonverbal and verbal communication, symbolic play, and the conventions and “rules” of social conversations in different situations). In typically developing children, a high rate of spontaneous communication is correlated with the acquisition of more symbolic and sophisticated forms of communication. Thus, individuals with ASD are at a significant disadvantage with learning more conventional forms of communication when their rate of communication is infrequent and the intervention is focused on their response to others versus their initiation (Prizant et al. 2006; NRC 2001).

These challenges are relevant across the entire developmental range in ASD, including those identified with Asperger syndrome (AS). Although individuals with AS demonstrate higher-level abilities on standardized measures of cognitive and language ability, outcome studies with this population highlight that cognitive, academic, and even strong expressive language abilities do not necessarily ensure an individual’s ability to establish and maintain satisfying relationships that contribute to success at school, at home, and in the community (Saulnier and Klin 2007; Tsatsanis et al. 2004). Challenges in social communication significantly compromise social adaptive functioning and the ability to achieve longer-term vocational goals even in those with strong intellectual abilities (Gilchrist et al. 2001; Little 2001; Saulnier and Klin 2007; Tantam 2000; see also Tsatsanis 2003). Such vulnerabilities also place the individual at risk for mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression (Tsatsanis et al. 2004). Therefore, when developing a comprehensive educational program for individuals with ASD, addressing social communication is a critical priority across all levels of functioning.

In the SCERTS Model manuals (Prizant et al. 2006), a curriculum-based assessment tool is provided so that an individualized educational plan can be developed based on an individual’s profile, rather than using the same prescribed curriculum for all individuals (Prizant et al. 2006). The SCERTS Assessment Process assesses individual differences in the domain of social communication from preverbal to more advanced language stages, covering a wide developmental and chronological age span. A carefully laid out scope and sequence of goals and objectives is provided to provide a means to select developmentally appropriate and meaningful goals in the components of the social communication domain, i.e., joint attention and symbol use, to address an individual’s specific needs, and to monitor progress over time (Prizant et al. 2006). This ensures that multidisciplinary teams have a means to select targets and measure progress over time with a sustainable tool beginning in early intervention and carrying on through the school-age years, possibly into adulthood.

The core challenges in social communication as experienced by individuals with ASD are assessed using a three-stage developmental continuum divided into the Social Partner, Language Partner, and Conversational Partner stages. Within each stage, potential goals and objectives are delineated to allow teams to select the most appropriate targets based on three criteria. (1) Functional: will achievement of this objective make a meaningful difference for this individual, (2) Family Priority: is this objective consistent with family priorities, and (3) Developmental: is this objective consistent with the individual’s developmental abilities as measured on the SCERTS Assessment Process. The Social Partner stage in the SCERTS Model encompasses two transitions that typically develop during the first few years of life, namely the ability to communicate with intent with others and the acquisition and use of conventional gestures and vocalizations. The Language Partner stage encompasses the transition to the intentional and meaningful use of single symbols (e.g., words, signs, photos, icons) as well as the creative combinations of symbols, which typically occurs between 2 to 4 years of age. This stage is particularly challenging for individuals with ASD, as limited social orientation, unconventional verbal behavior (e.g., echolalia), and limited understanding of the intentions of others makes the acquisition of early word combinations such as agent + action (e.g., “mommy hug” or “daddy tickle”) a particular challenge. As this skill is predictive of creative language acquisition in all children, this is a strong emphasis of the Language Partner Stage. Lastly, the Conversational Partner stage includes the acquisition of sentence grammar and conversational discourse and represents a stage where individuals with ASD are challenged with learning how to be a true conversational partner by adapting their language and conversational style based upon the social expectations and perspectives of those around them. This stage is particularly relevant through the school-aged years and beyond.

Core challenges have also been documented with respect to emotional regulation, a developmental capacity that plays a significant role in fostering social communicative competence (NRC 2000). In individuals with ASD, challenges have been noted with respect to effectively regulating one’s emotional state and behavior, focusing attention to salient aspects of the environment, and engaging in executive functioning, which refers to an ability to solve problem, plan, and self-monitor goal-directed behavior. Difficulties with emotional expression, interpretation of nonverbal social cues, and mood regulation are widely discussed in the ASD literature (Klin and Volkmar 2003). For individuals with ASD, there is often a mismatch between (1) a child’s ability to remain actively engaged, adapt to novel stimuli, and inhibit impulsive reactions and (2) the expectations for that child regarding appropriate and socially conventional behavior in a given context (Laurent and Rubin 2004; Miller et al. 2004). Limitations in emotional regulation abilities also contribute to the development of a variety of challenging behaviors. Such behaviors can have a significant impact on an individual’s access to educational and social opportunities (Koegel et al. 1996; Prizant and Laurent 2011; Walker et al. 2004).

At the core of the disability, individuals with ASD have difficulty predicting the actions of their social partners (Klin and Volkmar 2003). While these challenges clearly compromise the development of social communication skills, as described above, they also contribute to challenges in emotional regulation. An individual needs to accurately predict the behavior or intent of others in order to maintain active engagement in social situations, to feel comfortable, and to initiate engagement with others. Difficulty in these areas leads to increased frustration, and anxiety and may contribute to withdrawal and depression (Little 2001; Tantam 2000). Emotional regulation challenges can, in fact, provide a significant obstacle toward the achievement of social communicative competence if left unaddressed or if considered a lesser priority than academic skills (NRC 2000).

In the SCERTS Model, two components of emotional regulation are of primary interest: (1) mutual regulation and (2) self-regulation. Mutual regulation refers to the ability to respond to or solicit assistance in regulating one’s emotional state. As individuals with ASD frequently misinterpret social cues, they often fail to recognize assistance that is offered by partners (e.g., parents, service providers, peers; Laurent and Rubin 2004) and may avoid opportunities to request support from others because of increased anxiety and/or social withdrawal. Likewise, partners of individuals with ASD often miss opportunities to provide support because of the subtle and atypical signals of emotional distress in this population. Specific challenges in this capacity include, but are not limited to (1) expressing emotion, (2) responding to assistance, (3) responding to feedback and guidance regarding behavior, (4) requesting assistance, and (5) recovering from distress with the support of partners (Prizant et al. 2006). A carefully laid out scope and sequence of goals and objectives is provided in the SCERTS assessment process to provide a means to select developmentally appropriate and meaningful goals in mutual regulation, to address an individual’s specific needs, and to monitor progress over time (Prizant et al. 2006).

The capacity for self-regulation is also a component of emotional regulation that is of interest (Laurent and Rubin 2004). As the development of conventional or socially acceptable strategies for self-regulation requires an ability to imitate others, follow instructions, and consider the perspective of others, regulatory behaviors modeled by social partners are often missed. As a result, an individual with ASD may use behaviors that are atypical, unconventional, or simply not based on an understanding of the perspective of others. These behaviors have been described in the literature as “odd,” “disruptive,” or “deviant.” In fact, many sensory-motor patterns of behavior that may be attempts at self-regulation are often referred to as “autistic behaviors” because of their repetitive and unconventional nature (e.g., rocking, spinning, staring at fingers, gaze aversion). Specific challenges in this capacity include (1) demonstrating availability for engaging, (2) using conventional behaviors to regulate arousal during familiar activities, (3) using conventional language strategies to regulate arousal during familiar activities, (4) using metacognitive strategies (i.e., the ability to reflect and plan) to regulate arousal during familiar activities, (5) regulating emotion during new and changing situations, and (6) recovering from extreme distress by oneself (Prizant et al. 2006).

Individuals with ASD often continue to use early developing and/or atypical strategies to regulate their emotions and arousal beyond early childhood. Behaviors such as insisting on specific routines, hoarding preferred items, and averting gaze may persist in older individuals with ASD, but are actually quite common in typically developing young children. In addition, when an individual is not tuned into models provided by others, the use of language for self-regulation may follow more idiosyncratic or atypical patterns. Individuals with ASD may recite the lines of a favorite movie or book or repetitively talk about areas of special interest when faced with distressful social circumstances (Prizant and Laurent 2011; Rydell and Prizant 1995). Unusual patterns in self-regulation can lead to social isolation, as the negative perception of these behaviors can create barriers to building relationships and contribute to an increased risk for depression (Little 2001; Tantam 2000).

As emotional regulation is a critical developmental process that is correlated with the development of social relationships, behavioral adjustment, and academic success (Martinez-Pons 1996; Rydell et al. 2003), this is considered an essential domain in the SCERTS Model. A carefully laid out scope and sequence of goals and objectives provided in the SCERTS Assessment Process provide a means to select developmentally appropriate and meaningful goals in self-regulation, to address an individual’s specific needs, and to monitor progress over time (Prizant et al. 2006).

Addressing social communication and emotional regulation cannot be achieved solely in isolated teaching contexts such as one-on-one therapy or a social skills group. Rather, these developmental achievements need to be supported across social activities, social partners, and social contexts (e.g., home, school, and community). A comprehensive educational program will ensure that supports are embedded throughout an individual’s daily routines. In addition, the importance of partner training is evident, as setting targets for the individual with ASD does not always ensure that partners will modify their communicative style and the environment to accommodate the individual’s unique learning style, address family priorities, and facilitate generalization across situations and contexts (Simpson et al. 2003). Family support, personnel preparation, and peer training are characteristics of an effective comprehensive model as a means to ensure individualized supports are embedded across contexts and activities (Prizant et al. 2006; Wetherby and Woods 2006).

The SCERTS Assessment Process was not only designed to identify goals and objectives that have been shown to address the core challenges that compromise social communicative competence, but was also designed to provide a tool for measuring program fidelity across partners, contexts, and activities (Prizant et al. 2006). In other words, progress is documented not only in an individual with ASD but also in how consistently partners use interactive styles and environmental arrangements that are evidence-based to foster more successful engagement across daily routines. In the SCERTS Model, this domain is referred to as transactional support. Essentially, this domain emphasizes that when partners are responsive to the individual with ASD, individuals with ASD are more competent social communicators.

A partners’ ability to provide these supports is often compromised by the transactional nature of the social disability (Prizant et al. 2003). The atypical style of individuals with ASD compromises the ability of a communicative partner to provide these supports. In more focused approaches, which often have a sole target on enhancing the skills of the individual with the disability, supports are not necessarily being implemented across all partners; thus, the consistency of partner behavior is less of a challenge. However, when implementing a comprehensive educational approach, the emphasis shifts toward those who interact with the individual throughout the day. Those who interact with the individual, as a result, often require direct coaching and support to ensure competent communicative exchanges (Prizant et al. 2006).

Intervention research has demonstrated a strong correlation with how communicative partners adapt their communicative styles and modify the environment with learning supports and the social communicative competence of an individual with ASD (ASHA 2006; NRC 2001). An individual with ASD must experience successful social interactions with partners across a range of social contexts in order to develop skills in both social communication and emotional regulation. Unfortunately, partners do not have an easy task in providing these accommodations, as subtle and unconventional bids for communication and emotional distress can lead to frequent misinterpretations. For example, an individual with ASD might initiate a request for comfort by seeking physical proximity, but if such an attempt is sudden or unconventional, and therefore is perceived as potentially harmful, the attempt might be rejected or responded to negatively by staff. While the teacher might perceive this behavior as inappropriate or even threatening, the individual’s difficulty in inhibiting impulsive reactions, considering another’s perspective, and using more appropriate communication (e.g., speech or conventional gestures) masks the true intent of the behavior (i.e., requesting comfort). While an intervention approach can certainly address this using more appropriate communicative forms with the individual with ASD, empowering the partners with the knowledge of why these behaviors are occurring and how to alter their own communicative style to foster success can have a more efficient impact on social exchanges (e.g., provide visual models for communicative forms, responding to bids for interaction). Partners, in these circumstances, might be encouraged to not only acknowledge the bids from the individual with ASD (e.g., “It looks like you need a hug… need a break”) but also explicitly model and encourage imitation of a more appropriate communicative act (e.g., using a sign for hug, asking to go for a walk).

In a similar manner, unconventional coping strategies such as reciting lines from a movie during a boisterous group activity in the classroom might be perceived as avoidant, disruptive, and disrespectful to the group. Yet, this may also be a result of that individual’s increased anxiety with the task demands and the lack of a clear and predictable endpoint to the task. As such, while a plan might be developed to support the use of more socially conventional coping strategies (e.g., asking for help or a break), partners would also be encouraged to recognize signals of distress and to provide support. Service providers, for example, might be encouraged to label the individual’s emotions (e.g., “It looks like you might be frustrated…”) while modeling coping strategies (e.g., “Let’s write down the steps we need to complete this task”).