Smith, Tristram; Groen, Annette D.; Wynn, Jacqueline W. (2000). American Journal on Mental Retardation, v105 n4 p269-85. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ617917
Reviewed: August 2010
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 Lovaas Model of Applied Behavior Analysis.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
IQ |
Lovaas Model of Applied Behavior Analysis vs. Parent training |
Posttest |
Full sample;
|
66.65 |
49.67 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 14% | |
| Black | 14% | |
| White | 50% |
| Hispanic | 21% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 79% |
Participants resided within a one-hour drive to the research site, located at the University of California–Los Angeles (UCLA) Young Autism Project.
For this study, all referrals to the ULCA Young Autism Project were eligible if the following criteria were met: (1) referred to the treatment center between 1989 and 1992, (2) chronological age between 18 and 42 months, (3) residence within a one-hour drive of treatment center, (4) IQ ratio between 35 and 75, (5) diagnosis of autism or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified, and (6) no other major medical problems. Of those determined to meet the criteria, one family declined, and eight others were determined not to be eligible. Children were divided into two strata: those with autism and those with other diagnoses. Within the strata, 32 children were divided into pairs based on IQ and randomly assigned to the treatment or comparison condition. After random assignment, four children with mental retardation and no pervasive developmental disorder were excluded. The final sample included 28 children (15 in the intervention group and 13 in the comparison group).
The intervention for the treatment group was based on Lovaas’s behavior treatment model. The program was implemented with four to six student therapists, supervised by the study authors. Treatment occurred in the children’s homes for approximately 30 hours a week for two to three years. Participants’ primary caregivers were asked to conduct five hours per week of treatment alongside a student therapist for the first three months of treatment. In the beginning of the treatment, student therapists largely used one-to-one discrete trials, which involve a cue for behavior, guidance on the appropriate response, and reinforcement. As children mastered skills, the treatment progressed from simple tasks to more complex skills. Once the children entered school, student therapists served as aides to help the children adjust to classrooms, and the one-to-one treatment decreased as children progressed.
Parents of children in the comparison group received training to use treatment approaches described in the Lovaas et al. (1981) manual. Parents received in-home training in two weekly sessions, totaling five hours per week, for three to nine months. The first author of the study met with parents at the first and last training sessions, and every three months in between. In the first session, parents were asked to identify three goals for the child, and the first author and parent trainer created a plan using the Lovaas approach to reach those goals. In subsequent sessions, the trainer would demonstrate the techniques, observe the parent, and provide feedback.
Cognitive development was assessed with a measure of intellectual functioning, or IQ. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix A2.1.
Training for student therapists for the intervention group was not explicitly stated. Trainers for the comparison group had a minimum of one year of experience at the UCLA Young Autism Project, which included at least six months instructing novice therapists. The trainers for the comparison group received one hour per week of individual supervision from the first author, with additional supervision as needed. The study authors had a combined experience of 10 years at the UCLA Young Autism Project under Lovaas’s supervision.
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