The Most Commonly Reported Behavior Analytic Methods in Early Intensive Autism Treatments

Outcomes for children with autism spectrum disorder and their families after two years of school based early intensive behavioural intervention

The effectiveness of a school based Early Intensive Behavioural Intervention (EIBI) program was assessed over a two-year period for a cohort of 16 pre-school children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and their families. Children with a mean age of 40 months, were assessed prior to intervention, after 1 year of intervention, and again after 2 years. Significant improvements were observed on measures of adaptive behaviour, communication ability and challenging behaviour. Parents of children attending the program also reported increased familial quality of life, specifically improved emotional and physical well-being and increased parenting capacity over the duration of the program. The current study suggests that EIBI for young children with ASD can be effective in facilitating improvements in communication ability, reducing challenging behaviours and improving quality of life for families. Children's pre-intervention adaptive skills appeared to be the strongest predictor of post intervention gains as initial level of adaptive ability was positively related to improved post-intervention outcomes.

Early results from a combined low-intensive psychoeducational intervention for preschoolers with autism spectrum disorder

Purpose: Early and Intensive Behavioral Treatments are considered to be evidence-based interventions for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Nevertheless, children with ASD might not always have the opportunity to benefit from intensive treatment; new, more accessible and alternative treatment options need to be tested. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Combined Low-intensive Psychoeducational Intervention (CLI-PEI) delivered to preschoolers with ASD at the end of the pre-primary school day.Methods: A quasi-experimental design study, namely a pretest-posttest alternative-treatment comparison groups design, was used. Treatment sessions were carried out over a period of 12 months. Forty-three individuals with autism were included in the study: 24 received the CLI-PEI and 19 were administered the Treatment As Usual. A pre- and posttreatment assessment was carried out using the Psychoeducational Profile-Third edition and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale.Results: The children who received the CLI-PEI showed better gains in both developmental and maladaptive behaviors; furthermore, increased skills were found in all adaptive domains.Conclusions: The CLI-PEI might seems to be a viable treatment option for children with ASD, when intensive behavioral treatments are not accessible.Implication for rehabilitationChildren with ASD might not always have the opportunity to benefit from intensive treatment.The identification of more accessible, less intensive and less expensive evidence-based psychoeducational interventions might represent an appealing challenge for rehabilitation therapists.Less intensive and less expensive evidence-based interventions might also represent a viable option for children and their families, especially in communities with limited resources for autism.A pragmatic approach including components from evidence-based treatments might guarantee flexibility and the possibility to implement an intervention well-tailored to the specific child needs.CLI-PEI for preschoolers with ASD seems to be a promising pragmatic approach, promoting improvements in developmental, adaptive and maladaptive domains.

Predictors of outcomes in autism early intervention: why don't we know more?

Response to early intervention programs in autism is variable. However, the factors associated with positive versus poor treatment outcomes remain unknown. Hence the issue of which intervention/s should be chosen for an individual child remains a common dilemma. We argue that lack of knowledge on "what works for whom and why" in autism reflects a number of issues in current approaches to outcomes research, and we provide recommendations to address these limitations. These include: a theory-driven selection of putative predictors; the inclusion of proximal measures that are directly relevant to the learning mechanisms demanded by the specific educational strategies; the consideration of family characteristics. Moreover, all data on associations between predictor and outcome variables should be reported in treatment studies.