Randomized, Controlled Trial of a Comprehensive Program for Young Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder
Young, Helen E.; Falco, Ruth A.; Hanita, Makoto (2016). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, v46 n2 p544-560. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1088333
-
examining235Students, gradesPK-K
IES Performance Measure
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2017
- IES Performance Measure (findings for IES Funded Studies )
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Battelle Development Inventory 2 (BDI-2) |
IES Funded Studies vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) Problem Behavior: Teacher report |
IES Funded Studies vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
105.12 |
105.14 |
No |
-- | |
|
Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) Problem Behavior: Parent report |
IES Funded Studies vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
106.33 |
108.15 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Vineland: Daily Living Skills |
IES Funded Studies vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
78.73 |
78.37 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) Social Skills: Parent report |
IES Funded Studies vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
73.00 |
72.98 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 20%
Male: 80% -
Rural, Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Oregon, Washington
-
Race Black 8% Native American 1% Other or unknown 24% Pacific Islander 10% White 58% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 11% Not Hispanic or Latino 89%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 65 public schools from the states of Oregon and Washington.
Study sample
Demographic characteristics of the analytic sample were not provided. Based on the initial randomized sample, students in the intervention group 81.5% were male, 55.6% were non-Hispanic White, 11.8% were Hispanic, 11.2% were Asian or other Pacific Islander, 7.3% were African American, and 0.6% were American Indian or Alaskan Native. Students in the randomized comparison sample were 78.2% were male, 60.5% were non-Hispanic White, 9.7% were Hispanic, 8.9% were Asian or other Pacific Islander, 8.1% were African American, and 0.8% were American Indian or Alaskan Native.
Intervention Group
The Comprehensive Autism Program (CAP) includes using a comprehensive set of practices that the authors considered evidence-based practices. This includes a specific set of environmental and visual supports across multiple environments over the course of each day. Behavioral strategies, pivotal response and discrete trial training were also used each day throughout the course of the day and for 15 minutes during individualized instruction. In addition, teachers used Applied Behavior Analysis, Floor time, preacademic instruction, picture communication systems, social skills training, and TEACCH work systems. Outside of school, families could receive home visits and consultations.
Comparison Group
The business-as-usual condition included Applied Behavior Analysis, discrete trial training, direct instruction, environmental arrangement, Floor time, Picture Exchange Communication System, pivotal response training, social skills training, TEACCH work systems, and visual supports.
Support for implementation
Intervention teachers participated in an initial 2-day training and also received coaching up to eight times each month. The training and coaching covered the intervention components noted above and used the Strategies for Teaching based on Autism Research (STAR) curriculum. In addition, parents of students in the intervention condition participated in two trainings, for 2 hours each, covering such topics as environmental arrangements, visual supports, behavioral strategies, and pivotal response training.
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).