References
Meets WWC evidence standards
Sallows, G. O., & Graupner, T. D. (2005). Intensive behavioral treatment for children with autism: Four-year outcome and predictors. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 110(6), 417–438.
Meets WWC evidence standards with reservations
Smith, T., Groen, A. D., & Wynn, J. W. (2000). Randomized trial of intensive early intervention for children with pervasive developmental disorder. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 105(4), 269–285.
Studies that fall outside the Early Childhood Education Interventions for Children with Disabilities review protocol or do not meet WWC evidence standards
Anderson, S. R., Avery, D. L., DiPietro, E. K., & Edwards, G. L. (1987). Intensive home-based early intervention with autistic children. Education & Treatment of Children, 10(4), 352–366. The study is ineligible for review because it does not occur within the time frame specified in the protocol.
Bailey, K. J. (2000). Social competence of children with autism classified as best-outcome following behavior analytic treatment (Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(12B), 82–6696. The study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Bassett, K., Green, C. J., & Kazanjian, A. (2000). Autism and Lovaas treatment: A systematic review of effectiveness evidence. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: British Columbia Office of Health Technology Assessment, Centre for Health Services and Policy Research, University of British Columbia. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Bibby, P., Eikeseth, S., Martin, N. T., Mudford, O. C., & Reeves, D. (2002). Progress and outcomes for children with autism receiving parent-managed intensive interventions. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 23(1), 81. The study is ineligible for review because it does not take place in the geographic area specified in the protocol.
Birnbrauer, J. S., & Leach, D. J. (1993). The Murdoch Early Intervention Program after 2 years. Behaviour Change, 10(2), 63–74. The study is ineligible for review because it does not take place in the geographic area specified in the protocol.
Blue Cross Blue Shield Technology Evaluation Center. (2009). Special report: Early intensive behavioral intervention based on applied behavior analysis among children with autism spectrum disorders. Assessment Program, 23(9). The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Buch, G. A. (1996). Teaching parents and paraprofessionals how to provide behavioral intensive early intervention for children with autism and pervasive developmental disorder (Doctoral dissertation, University of California–Los Angeles). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(9-B), 5153. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it does not have at least three attempts to demonstrate an intervention effect at three different points in time.
Chasson, G. S., Harris, G. E., & Neely, W. J. (2007). Cost comparison of early intensive behavioral intervention and special education for children with autism. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16(3), 401–413. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Cohen, H., Amerine-Dickens, M., & Smith, T. (2006). Early intensive behavioral treatment: Replication of the UCLA model in a community setting. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 27(2), 145–155. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.
Committee on Educational Interventions for Children with Autism. (2001). Educating children with autism. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Connor, M. (1998). A review of behavioural early intervention programmes for children with autism. Educational Psychology in Practice, 14(2), 109–117. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Connor, M. (2003). Monitoring and reviewing early behavioural intervention in autism (Lovaas). Educational Psychology in Practice, 19(1), 21–33. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Eikeseth, S. (2009). Outcome of comprehensive psycho-educational interventions for young children with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30(1), 158–178. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Eikeseth, S., Hayward, D., Gale, C., Gitlesen, J., & Eldevik, S. (2009). Intensity of supervision and outcome for preschool aged children receiving early and intensive behavioral interventions: A preliminary study. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3(1), 67–73. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design.
Eikeseth, S., Smith, T., Jahr, E., & Eldevik, S. (2002). Intensive behavioral treatment at school for 4- to 7-year-old children with autism: A 1-year comparison controlled study. Behavior Modification, 26(1), 49. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.
Eikeseth, S., Smith, T., Jahr, E., & Eldevik, S. (2007). Outcome for children with autism who began intensive behavioral treatment between ages 4 and 7: A comparison controlled study. Behavior Modification, 31(3), 264–278. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.
Eldevik, S., Eikeseth, S., Jahr, E., & Smith, T. (2006). Effects of low-intensity behavioral treatment for children with autism and mental retardation. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36(2), 211–224. The study is ineligible for review because it does not take place in the geographic area specified in the protocol.
Eldevik, S., Hastings, R. P., Hughes, J. C., Jahr, E., Eikeseth, S., & Cross, S. (2009). Meta-analysis of early intensive behavioral intervention for children with autism. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 38(3), 439–450. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Farrell, P., Trigonaki, N., & Webster, D. (2005). An exploratory evaluation of two early intervention programmes for young children with autism. Educational and Child Psychology, 22(4), 29–40. The study is ineligible for review because it does not take place in the geographic area specified in the protocol.
Gresham, F. M., Beebe-Frankenberger, M., & MacMillan, D. L. (1999). A selective review of treatments for children with autism: Description and methodological considerations. School Psychology Review, 28(4), 559. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Harris, S. L., & Weiss, M. J. (2007). Right from the start: Behavioral intervention for young children with autism (2nd ed.). Bethesda, MD: Woodbine House. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Hourmanesh, N. (2006). Early comprehensive interventions for children with autism: A meta-analysis (Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(07A), 140–2463. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Howlin, P., Magiati, I., & Charman, T. (2009). Systematic review of early intensive behavioral interventions for children with autism. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 114(1), 23–41. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Hutchison-Harris, J. (2003). Does first year treatment intensity predict outcome in young autistic children receiving Lovaas ABA intervention? (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(05B), 156–2609. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.
Jacobson, J. W., & Mulick, J. A. (2000). System and cost research issues in treatments for people with autistic disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30(6), 585. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Jacobson, J. W., Mulick, J. A., & Green, G. (1998). Cost-benefit estimates for early intensive behavioral intervention for young children with autism—general model and single state case. Behavioral Interventions, 13(4), 201–226. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Jones, J. T. (2007). Applied behavior analysis as a treatment for autism: A comprehensive literature review (Doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University, San Diego). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(07A), 50–2810. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Keesbury, S. A. (1997). The effectiveness of Lovaas therapy for children with autism. Unpublished master’s thesis, Mankato State University, MN. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Leader, G., Healy, O., & O’Connor, J. Early intensive behavioral intervention in the treatment of autistic spectrum disorders. In P. Reed (Ed.), Behavioral theories and interventions for autism (pp. 103-131). New York: Nova Science. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Lovaas, O. I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in young autistic children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(1), 3–9. The study is ineligible for review because it does not occur within the time frame specified in the protocol.
Lovaas, O. I. (1989). A comprehensive behavioral theory of autistic children: Paradigm for research and treatment. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 20, 17–29. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Lovaas, O. I. (1993). The development of a treatment-research project for developmentally disabled and autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26(4), 617. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Lovaas, O. I. (1994). Intensive and long-term treatments for clients with destructive behavior. In T. Thompson & D. Gray (Eds.), Destructive behavior in developmental disabilities: Diagnosis and treatment (pp. 243–260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Lovaas, O. I. (1996). The UCLA young autism model of service. In C. Maurice, G. Green, & S. C. Luce (Eds.), Behavioral intervention for young children with autism: A manual for parents and professionals (pp. 241–248). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Lovaas, O. I., & Buch, G. (1997). Intensive behavioral intervention with young children with autism. In N. H. Singh (Ed.), Prevention and treatment of severe behavior problems (pp. 61–86). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Lovaas, O. I., & Smith, T. (2003). Early and intensive behavioral intervention in autism. In A. E. Kazdin & J. R. Weisz (Eds.), Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents (pp. 325–340). New York: Guilford Press. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Ludwig, S., & Harstall, H. (2001). Intensive intervention programs for children with autism. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Luiselli, J. K., Cannon, B. O., Ellis, J. T., & Sisson, R. W. (2000). Home-based behavioral intervention for young children with autism/pervasive developmental disorder: A preliminary evaluation of outcome in relation to child age and intensity of service delivery. Autism, 4(4), 426–438. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design.
McEachin, J. J., Smith, T., & Lovaas, O. I. (1993). Long-term outcome for children with autism who received early intensive behavioral treatment. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97(4), 359–372. The study is ineligible for review because it does not occur within the time frame specified in the protocol.
Mudford, O. C., Martin, N. T., Eikeseth, S., & Bibby, P. (2001). Parent-managed behavioral treatment for preschool children with autism: Some characteristics of UK programs. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22(3), 173–182. The study is ineligible for review because it does not take place in the geographic area specified in the protocol.
Perry, R., Cohen, I., & DeCarlo, R. (1995). Case study: Deterioration, autism, and recovery in two siblings. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 34(2), 232–237. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design.
Reed, P., Osborne, L. A., & Corness, M. (2007). Brief report: Relative effectiveness of different home-based behavioral approaches to early teaching intervention. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(9), 1815–1821. The study is ineligible for review because it does not take place in the geographic area specified in the protocol.
Reed, P., Osborne, L. A., & Corness, M. (2007). The real-world effectiveness of early teaching interventions for children with autism spectrum disorder. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 417–433. The study is ineligible for review because it does not take place in the geographic area specified in the protocol.
Reichow, B., & Wolery, M. (2009). Comprehensive synthesis of early intensive behavioral interventions for young children with autism based on the UCLA Young Autism Project model. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(1), 23–41. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Rogers, S. J., & Vismara, L. A. (2008). Evidence-based comprehensive treatments for early autism. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 37(1), 8–38. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Shea, V. (2004). A perspective on the research literature related to early intensive behavioral intervention (Lovaas) for young children with autism. Autism: The International Journal of Research & Practice, 8(4), 349–367. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Sheinkopf, S. J., & Siegel, B. (1998). Home based behavioral treatment of young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 28(1), 15–23. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it only includes outcomes that are overaligned with the intervention or measured in a way that is inconsistent with the protocol.
Smith, T., Buch, G. A., & Gamby, T. E. (2000). Parent-directed, intensive early intervention for children with pervasive developmental disorder. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 21(4), 297–309. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it does not have at least three attempts to demonstrate an intervention effect at three different points in time.
Smith, T., Donahoe, P. A., & Davis, B. J. (2000). The UCLA Young Autism Project. In S. Harris & J. Handelman (Eds.), Preschool education programs for children with autism (2nd ed.; pp. 29–48). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Smith, T., Eikeseth, S., Klevstrand, M., & Lovaas, O. I. (1997). Intensive behavioral treatment for preschoolers with severe mental retardation and pervasive developmental disorder. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 102(3), 238–249. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—the intervention was combined with another intervention.
Smith, T., Klevstrand, M., & Lovaas, O. I. (1995). Behavioral treatment of Rett’s disorder: Ineffectiveness in three cases. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100(3), 317–322. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design.
Smith, T., & Lovaas, O. I. (1998). Intensive and early behavioral intervention with autism: The UCLA Young Autism Project. Infants and Young Children, 10(3), 67–78. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Smith, T., Mruzek, D. W., & Peyton, R. T. (2008). A study in perseverance: The emergence of early intensive behavioral intervention. In E. Cippani (Ed.), Triumphs in early autism treatment (pp. 151–170). New York: Springer. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Smith, T. A. (2004). The long term effects of the Lovaas approach on the development of autistic children. Unpublished dissertation, St. Cloud State University, MS. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Spreckley, M., & Boyd, R. (2009). Efficacy of applied behavioral intervention in preschool children with autism for improving cognitive, language, and adaptive behavior: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Pediatrics, 154(3), 338–344. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Tews, L. (2007). Early intervention for children with autism: Methodologies critique. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 35(1–2), 148–168. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.