Employing Evidence-Based Practices for Children with Autism in Elementary Schools
Sam, Ann M.; Odom, Samuel L.; Tomaszewski, Brianne; Perkins, Yolanda; Cox, Ann W. (2020). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED609046
-
examining465Students, gradesK-5
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2023
- Single Study Review (findings for National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder (NPDC) comprehensive program model—Sam et al. (2020))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Academic Performance Rating Scale (APRS): Academic success |
National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder (NPDC) comprehensive program model—Sam et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
19.00 |
18.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Social Skill Improvement System-Rating Scale (SSiS-RS) teacher version: academic competence |
National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder (NPDC) comprehensive program model—Sam et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
88.20 |
89.30 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Social Communication Questionnaire-Lifetime (parent-reported) |
National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder (NPDC) comprehensive program model—Sam et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
20.50 |
22.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Children's Communication Checklist-2 (CCC2): General communication composite |
National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder (NPDC) comprehensive program model—Sam et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
78.20 |
77.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale-II (VABS-II): Communication |
National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder (NPDC) comprehensive program model—Sam et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
72.90 |
72.40 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale-II (VABS-II): Daily Living Skills |
National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder (NPDC) comprehensive program model—Sam et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
73.30 |
73.60 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Autism Program Environment Assessment Rating Scale for preschool/elementary students (APERS-PE) |
National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder (NPDC) comprehensive program model—Sam et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Psychometric Equivalence Tested-Goal Attainment Scale (PET-GAS): total score |
National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder (NPDC) comprehensive program model—Sam et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.70 |
2.07 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Academic Performance Rating Scale (APRS): Academic productivity |
National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder (NPDC) comprehensive program model—Sam et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
36.50 |
35.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Academic Performance Rating Scale (APRS): Impulse control |
National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder (NPDC) comprehensive program model—Sam et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
8.50 |
8.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
Social Skills Improvement System-Rating Scale (SSIS-RS): Social Skills Scale |
National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder (NPDC) comprehensive program model—Sam et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
79.40 |
79.20 |
No |
-- | |
|
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale-II (VABS-II): Socialization |
National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder (NPDC) comprehensive program model—Sam et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
72.40 |
73.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
Social Skills Improvement System-Rating Scale (SSIS-RS): Problem Behaviors |
National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder (NPDC) comprehensive program model—Sam et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
112.70 |
111.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Repetitive Behavior Scale - Revised (RBSR) |
National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder (NPDC) comprehensive program model—Sam et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.50 |
0.60 |
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: 21%
Male: 79% -
Rural, Suburban, Urban
-
Race Asian 6% Black 26% Other or unknown 9% White 59% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 18% Not Hispanic or Latino 83% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 54% Other or unknown 46%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in 59 public elementary schools in a Southeastern state. The elementary schools were located in urban, suburban and rural areas. The study took place with students diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in special education and inclusive programs. In these settings, students with ASD spent the majority of the day in a special education classroom and were provided opportunities to participate with general education students at certain times throughout the day.
Study sample
A total of 465 students in kindergarten through grade 5 were included in the study. The 465 students were in 59 elementary schools. All students recruited for the study had a diagnosis of ASD and qualified for special education under state guidelines. Approximately 79% of the students were male and 54% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Fifty-nine percent of students were White, 26% were Black, 6% were Asian, and 9% did not specify a race or identified as multiracial. Eighteen percent were Hispanic or Latino and 83% were non-Hispanic or Latino. The researchers randomly assigned 40 elementary schools to the intervention group and 20 elementary schools to the comparison group and one intervention school left the study before it could be completed.
Intervention Group
Intervention schools had a National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder (NPDC) coach who spent 6 hours per week at each school. A measure of school climate was administered within the first 10 weeks of the intervention, and the research team used the results to develop a plan with two areas of need for improving school climate. The NPDC coach and Autism team ("A-team"), consisting of the school principal and three school staff, met 4 times per year to address progress on the school plan. NPDC coaches worked with the A-team and other school personnel to identify three Goal Achievement Scale (GAS) goals per student (goals focused on academics, social skills, communication, school readiness or other areas) and selected an evidence-based practice (EBP) from a list of 27 EBPs that Wong et al. (2015) identified as effective that would address these goals. NPDC coaches conducted pre-observation meetings, observations, and post-observation debriefs to coach teachers on selected EBPs.
Comparison Group
Comparison schools also had an NPDC coach assigned but received less support. Specifically, after pre-test data were collected the coach checked in via email two or three times to answer questions from school staff. A-team staff at comparison schools received a basic orientation and access to optional learning modules. A measure of school climate was conducted, but unlike the intervention group, the research team did not assist the comparison group with developing a plan based on the results.
Support for implementation
NPDC coaches received extensive training on the program model before initiating work with a school and had frequent supervision from research staff. The A-team at each intervention school received an orientation to the program model, a review of EBPs, an Introduction to Autism overview, and a session on using the GAS to set measurable goals for students. Comparison group A-teams received a half day of orientation including using the GAS and received access to trainings required of the intervention group. The orientation and trainings for the comparison group were optional. The research staff checked in approximately 2-3 times per year through email with the A-team at each comparison school.
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).