One‐year follow‐up of the outcome of a randomized controlled trial of a home‐based intervention programme for children with autism and developmental delay and their families

Response to early intervention programs in autism is variable. However, the factors associated with positive versus poor treatment outcomes remain unknown. Hence the issue of which intervention/s should be chosen for an individual child remains a common dilemma. We argue that lack of knowledge on “what works for whom and why” in autism reflects a number of issues in current approaches to outcomes research, and we provide recommendations to address these limitations. These include: a theory-driven selection of putative predictors; the inclusion of proximal measures that are directly relevant to the learning mechanisms demanded by the specific educational strategies; the consideration of family characteristics. Moreover, all data on associations between predictor and outcome variables should be reported in treatment studies.

show abstract

“…In addition, there have been mixed reports on family factors such as the level of maternal education (53, 54) and family stress (55, 56). …”

Section: Current Knowledge On Predictors Of Early Intervention Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of Outcomes in Autism Early Intervention: Why Donâ€™t We Know More?

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The review period has also seen an increase in the number of comprehensive intervention evaluations [65–69,70*]. Comprehensive interventions are treatments that target all areas of the child’s development.…”

Section: Comprehensive Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the studies often failed to control for dose, both in length of treatment and density of sessions. Just two were a randomized controlled trial [69,70*]. Also, nearly all comprehensive treatment studies reported a minimum dose of 20 h per week; however, it is not clear whether the 20 h were that similar in approach and content because only a few studies used a treatment manual.…”

Section: Comprehensive Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

New directions in behavioral treatment of autism spectrum disorders

Kasari

Lawton

2010

Current Opinion in Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of review The review explores current trends in the behavioral intervention literature for children with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) during 2008 and 2009. Noteworthy findings and intervention strategies are highlighted. Additionally, the quality of all reviewed studies is systematically evaluated. Recent findings During 2008 and 2009, there was nearly a quarter increase in the number of behavioral intervention studies, as well as more randomized controlled trials and approaches other than applied behavior analysis. Many of the studies investigated commonly used ASD intervention practices or novel treatments. A few were conducted with underserved populations, such as toddlers and adults with ASD. Social impairment was the focus of the largest number of intervention studies. A small percentage of studies were rated as high-quality. Summary Overall, the reviewed studies suggest that ASD-specific deficits can be improved through behavioral intervention. However, whereas progress continues to be made in our understanding of effective treatments for children with ASD, confidence in these findings would be improved with higher-quality studies.

show abstract

“…[12][13][14][15][16][17] These strategies, however, fail to deliberately address the types of psychological distress most often reported by parents. 12 Therefore, we conducted a randomized clinical trial of problem-solving education (PSE), a brief cognitive behavioral intervention, targeted to mothers of young children who recently received a diagnosis of ASD.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%