Social Validity of Evidence-Based Practices and Emerging Interventions in Autism

Abstract

Although the field of autism intervention and treatment is still emerging, a lack of knowledge about what to do should no longer be considered a significant challenge facing service providers. Recent large-scale, systematic, and robust research reviews have identified interventions with strong empirical evidence of effectiveness in some outcome areas. The results of these reviews provide support for the use of specific treatments with individuals who have autism spectrum disorder (ASD), especially within certain subpopulations. Two initiatives, in particular, the National Autism Center's (NAC; 2009) National Standards Project (NSP) and similar efforts by the National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders (NPDC; Odom, Collet-Klingenberg, Rogers, & Hatton, 2010; Wong et al., 2014), have resulted in the dissemination of lists of empirically validated treatments that can be implemented by teachers, parents, and therapists. Although differing somewhat in methodology, scope, and definitions (NPDC, 2013), the NSP and NPDC studies independently and reliably identified autism interventions and treatments considered to be "established" and "confirmed," respectively, as evidence-based practices (EBPs) in autism. The NPDC list originally specified 24 confirmed EBPs, 18 of which were also identified as established treatments by the NSP. Additional EBPs have recently been added (and one was removed) by the NPDC (Wong et al., 2015). Both the NSP and NPDC reviews developed criteria to systematically analyze the content (i.e., the "quality, quantity, and consistency," NAC, 2009, p. 31) of research findings and their corresponding strength of evidence. Both research teams sought to ensure adequate empirical evidence was available to reliably determine the efficacy of treatments for individuals with ASD before labeling any intervention as an established, confirmed, or emerging EBP. Despite this encouraging development, research in special education, applied behavior analysis (ABA), and other therapeutic fields suggests empirical evidence of effectiveness is often not sufficient to ensure the widespread use of potentially effective interventions, treatments, and programs (e.g., Bodfish, 2004; Carter, 2010). Although using EBPs in the public education of children with autism and other disabilities is mandated by federal regulations (e.g.

The Effects of a Technology-Based Self-monitoring Intervention on On-Task, Disruptive, and Task-Completion Behaviors for Adolescents with Autism

“…Additionally, this review highlights a lack of social validation. These results are consistent with other findings regarding lack of evidence of the measurement of social validation for EBPs for individuals with ASD (Callahan et al, 2016;Kennedy, 1992). Assessing social validity for self-monitoring interventions for adolescents with ASD is important because it will help determine the acceptability of procedures, outcomes, and goals from those directly affected by the intervention (Aladjeff-Abergel et al, 2015).…”

Empirically Supported Treatments for Students with Autism: General Education Teacher Knowledge, Use, and Social Validity Ratings

“…A possible explanation for the disconnection cited above is the perceived social validity of ESTs for education settings. 38,39 Social validity refers to the acceptability of the goals, procedures and outcomes of interventions. 40,41 As Greenway et al 42…”

Acceptability assessment of school psychology interventions from 2005 to 2017

“…To better understand if interventions are meeting this indicator, acceptability should be measured in the intervention literature, though past reviews suggest it is infrequently reported (e.g., Villarreal, Ponce, & Gutierrez, ). This issue may be because a standardized approach to the assessment and reporting of acceptability continues to be absent from many applied research journal guidelines (Callahan et al, ; Roach, Wixson, Talapatra, & LaSalle, ) despite recommendations to include acceptability in professional practice and research. Without a standardized approach to the assessment and reporting of acceptability, it is unclear how practitioners and researchers report and interpret acceptability findings.…”