Efficacy of a School-Based Comprehensive Intervention Program for Adolescents with Autism
Hume, Kara; Odom, Samuel L.; Steinbrenner, Jessica R.; Smith DaWalt, Leann; Hall, Laura J.; Kraemer, Bonnie; Tomaszewski, Brianne; Brum, Christopher; Szidon, Kate; Bolt, Daniel M. (2022). Exceptional Children, v88 n2 p223-240 Jan 2022. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1323805
-
examining59Schools, grades9-12
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2023
- Single Study Review (findings for Center on Secondary Education for Students with Autism (CSESA))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Autism Program Environment Rating Scale (APERS) |
Center on Secondary Education for Students with Autism (CSESA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Autism Program Environment Rating Scale (APERS): Instruction |
Center on Secondary Education for Students with Autism (CSESA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Autism Program Environment Rating Scale (APERS): Assessment and IEP domain |
Center on Secondary Education for Students with Autism (CSESA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Autism Program Environment Rating Scale (APERS): Transition composite score |
Center on Secondary Education for Students with Autism (CSESA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Autism Program Environment Rating Scale (APERS): Social domain |
Center on Secondary Education for Students with Autism (CSESA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Autism Program Environment Rating Scale (APERS): Teaming domain |
Center on Secondary Education for Students with Autism (CSESA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Autism Program Environment Rating Scale (APERS): Communication domain |
Center on Secondary Education for Students with Autism (CSESA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Autism Program Environment Rating Scale (APERS): Functional behavior domain |
Center on Secondary Education for Students with Autism (CSESA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
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: 14%
Male: 86% -
Rural, Suburban, Town, 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
California, North Carolina, Wisconsin
-
Race Asian 4% Black 13% Native American 3% Other or unknown 11% Two or more races 7% White 62% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 19% Not Hispanic or Latino 75% Other or unknown 6% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 40% No FRPL 60%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 60 public high schools across 24 districts. Districts were located in North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Southern California, and 20 schools from each state participated. Forty percent of districts were in urban areas, 45% in suburbs, and 15% in rural areas. Slightly over half of participating schools (55%) were Title I eligible. All participating schools enrolled students with and without disabilities. Schools ranged in size from 832 students to 3,079 students.
Study sample
The researchers randomly assigned 30 schools to the intervention group and 30 schools to the comparison group. A total of 547 high school students (303 intervention and 244 comparison) were initially enrolled in the study. To be eligible for the study, students had to have a primary or secondary classification of autism, be expected to be in the school for two school years, and must not have a severe uncorrected visual or hearing impairment. All students in the sample were classified with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and had individualized education programs. Approximately 86% of participating students were male and an average of 40% of students at each study school were eligible for free and reduced-price lunch. Sixty-two percent of the students were White, 13% were Black, 11% had an unknown race, and less than 10% were in each of the following racial groups: Asian, Native American, or two or more races. Three-quarters of participating students were non-Hispanic, 19% were Hispanic, and 6% did not report ethnicity.
Intervention Group
The Center on Secondary Education for Students with Autism (CSESA) model is a comprehensive program for high school students with autism. CSESA is designed to support academics, peer relationships and social competence, independence and behavior, transitions, and families. It consists of multiple school staff who are trained to implement the model (called the “A-team”), including one or more special education teacher(s), general education teacher(s), other services personnel, and a school administrator. The A-team assessed their school’s strengths and weaknesses in supporting students with autism, assessed the needs of students, and developed a plan to improve specific school practices to better support students with autism. Each component was implemented for at least one semester with each student and the CSESA model was implemented over two years.
Comparison Group
Comparison group schools did not offer the full CSESA model, but CSESA coaches provided some support to school staff. CSESA coaches helped comparison schools form an A-team at the beginning of the school year and provided a schoolwide workshop on autism. Additionally, they conducted training on goal setting, and provided resources such as websites and informational handouts, and baseline information on the school’s strengths and weaknesses in supporting students with autism. However, comparison schools did not receive any support or guidance from CSESA coaches on which school practices to improve or how to improve them.
Support for implementation
All intervention schools received training and implementation support from CSESA coaches, who were professionals with expertise in education and autism. Coaches helped intervention schools form the A-team at the beginning of the school year and they helped the A-team plan the intervention components based on data on school quality and student needs. Coaches provided an initial 3-hour training, which introduced them to both the CSESA model and the research study, and a schoolwide orientation to autism. Coaches also provided 1 to 3 hour workshops and follow-up coaching throughout the 2-year implementation period. Overall, intervention schools received an average of 16 hours of workshop training and 123 hours of coaching.
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).