No abstract

Social–emotional learning (SEL) is the process of acquiring and applying knowledge, skills, and attitudes to achieve long-term relational and emotional goals. Teachers often implement SEL strategies in the classroom; however, shifting to online schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted teachers’ perceptions of their abilities to implement SEL. This study was designed to identify whether and how teachers’ perceptions of SEL changed since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Teachers ( N = 637) in the USA completed a demographic questionnaire, the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21), and rated their beliefs about SEL during the pandemic on a modified version of the Comfort and Culture subscales of the Teacher SEL Beliefs Scale. Data were collected between September 2020 and March 2021. Teachers indicated that they felt neutral to comfortable with SEL and that they felt neutral to supported by their school culture for SEL during the pandemic. Lower depression symptoms, greater school poverty, and perceived general support (not specific to SEL) from the administration were associated with higher teacher comfort with SEL. Further, greater general support from the district and colleagues was associated with greater school culture supporting SEL during COVID-19. Results suggest that addressing teachers’ internalizing symptoms and fostering a supportive work environment is important in aiding teachers in SEL implementation.

Understanding the types of intervention practices familiar to transdisciplinary autism spectrum disorder providers may be critical to characterize and optimize “usual care” for common clinical concerns (e.g. internalizing, externalizing, and social challenges) among school- and transition-age autistic youth. We assessed if there is an underlying factor structure to expert providers’ familiarity with such practices, and if characteristics of experts (discipline, years’ experience, and school setting) and/or their clients (age and intellectual disability) predicted these factors. Fifty-three expert providers rated their familiarity with 55 practices via an online Delphi poll. Exploratory structural equation modeling identified latent factors of familiarity, which were regressed onto provider and client variables to identify predictors. Four factors emerged: two approaches (cognitive and behavioral) and two strategies (engagement and accessibility). Cognitive approaches were associated with practicing outside school settings and treating clients without intellectual disability, behavioral approaches with practicing in schools and the disciplines of clinical psychology and behavior analysis, engagement strategies with practicing outside school settings, and accessibility strategies with more years in practice. Findings suggest expert transdisciplinary autism spectrum disorder providers are familiar with many of the same approaches and that differences in knowledge are predicted by their discipline, treatment setting, experience, and work with youth with intellectual disabilities. Lay abstract School-age children, adolescents, and young adults with autism spectrum disorder encounter many different types of providers in their pursuit of treatment for anxiety, behavior problems, and social difficulties. These providers may all be familiar with different types of intervention practices. However, research has not yet investigated patterns in expert providers’ familiarity with different practices nor how these patterns are related to the characteristics of providers (years in practice, academic discipline, setting) and the youth (age and intellectual disability) they typically support. A panel of 53 expert transdisciplinary providers rated their familiarity with 55 intervention practices (derived from research and expert nominations) via an online Delphi poll. Advanced statistical methods were used to identify types of intervention practices with which providers were familiar, which included two approaches (cognitive and behavioral) and two strategies (engagement and accessibility). Providers who practiced outside a school setting or treated clients without intellectual disability were more familiar with cognitive approaches. Clinical psychologists, behavior analysts, and school-based providers were more familiar with behavioral approaches. Providers practicing outside school settings were also more familiar with engagement strategies, and providers with more years in practice were more familiar with accessibility strategies. These results may help families and researchers to better anticipate how services may vary depending on the types of autism spectrum disorder providers seen and work to reduce disparities in care that may result.

This chapter summarizes current scientific knowledge around the prevalence, etiology, and developmental course of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in children and adults in the general population, and—based on the limited scientific literature—what is indicated for those with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Challenges related to differential diagnosis and measurement of PTSD in ASD are considered and illustrated via a case example. The chapter concludes with an overview of evidence-based treatments for PTSD in people without ASD, and their potential applications for those with ASD. Overall, the limited research on PTSD in ASD thus far points to increased rates of adversity and related psychopathology, but few evidence-based approaches to assessment or treatment of PTSD and other trauma-related symptoms in this population. Future investigations should consider not only PTSD in ASD but also a broader range of potential sources and symptoms of trauma in ASD and work quickly to identify empirically supported assessments and treatments.

No abstract