Schreibman, Laura; Stahmer, Aubyn C. (2014). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, v44 n5 p1244-1251. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1038424
Reviewed: December 2016
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Pivotal Response Training.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL), Expressive Language Scale |
Pivotal Response Training vs. Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
24.30 |
26.70 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
The Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL), Expressive Language Scale |
Pivotal Response Training vs. Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
25.50 |
28.70 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
Undergraduate student therapists provided the assigned intervention to children in their homes. Parents were also trained on using the intervention and participated in education sessions with their children in small playrooms at two universities and in their homes.
Forty-one children were randomly assigned to either PRT or PECS, and 39 participated in the study. Two families, one in each condition, discontinued participation during the initial phase of the intervention; one family moved and one family preferred to receive the nonassigned intervention. The children were diagnosed with autistic disorder using the Autism Diagnostic Interview–Revised and the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule–Generic. To participate, children also had to speak fewer than nine intelligible words. There were 34 male children and five female children; all were aged 20–45 months. The final analytic sample included 38 children, with either 20 or 19 children in the PRT group (the study does not report analytic sample sizes by condition).
Children in the intervention condition received PRT. Parents and therapists who provided PRT were trained in accordance with the PRT training manual. Children in the intervention group received between 181 and 263 hours of PRT in their home.
Children in the comparison condition received the PECS intervention, an intervention that teaches children to exchange picture icons to communicate. Parents and therapists who provided PECS were trained in accordance with the PECS training manual. Children in the comparison group received between 181 and 263 hours of PECS in their home.
During the study period, undergraduate student therapists and parents received training in accordance with the PRT manual. During the first 15 weeks, parents participated in 2-hour education sessions in the laboratory with their children twice a week. During the subsequent 8 weeks, they received 2-hour education sessions once a week and 2-hour sessions in the home twice a week. The implementation process was identical in the comparison group for PECS.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube