Early intensive behavioral treatment: Replication of the UCLA model in a community setting. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 27(2), S145-S155

Valley Mountain Regional Center, Stockton, CA, USA.
Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics (Impact Factor: 2.13). 05/2006; 27(2 Suppl):S145-55. DOI: 10.1097/00004703-200604002-00013
Source: PubMed


Although previous studies have shown favorable results with early intensive behavioral treatment (EIBT) for children with autism, it remains important to replicate these findings, particularly in community settings. The authors conducted a 3-year prospective outcome study that compared 2 groups: (1) 21 children who received 35 to 40 hours per week of EIBT from a community agency that replicated Lovaas' model of EIBT and (2) 21 age- and IQ-matched children in special education classes at local public schools. A quasi-experimental design was used, with assignment to groups based on parental preference. Assessments were conducted by independent examiners for IQ (Bayley Scales of Infant Development or Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scales of Intelligence), language (Reynell Developmental Language Scales), nonverbal skill (Merrill-Palmer Scale of Mental Tests), and adaptive behavior (Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales). Analyses of covariance, with baseline scores as covariates and Year 1-3 assessments as repeated measures, revealed that, with treatment, the EIBT group obtained significantly higher IQ (F = 5.21, p = .03) and adaptive behavior scores (F = 7.84, p = .01) than did the comparison group. No difference between groups was found in either language comprehension (F = 3.82, p = .06) or nonverbal skill. Six of the 21 EIBT children were fully included into regular education without assistance at Year 3, and 11 others were included with support; in contrast, only 1 comparison child was placed primarily in regular education. Although the study was limited by the nonrandom assignment to groups, it does provide evidence that EIBT can be successfully implemented in a community setting.

19 Reads
    • "This research is timely. Lay beliefs of ASD may contribute to greater identification of the disorder (Kogan et al., 2009), and even the age at which an individual is diagnosed (Fernell and Gillberg, 2010), factors associated with timely intervention, and subsequently, improved outcomes (Cohen et al., 2006). In order to further enhance the utility of this area of research, and with an acknowledgment of the differences in lay beliefs in ASD etiology between Asian and western cultures, we sought to examine correlates of lay beliefs in the form of two constructs, values and social axioms. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent research examining the explanations given by the public (i.e. lay beliefs) for autism spectrum disorder often reveals a reasonably accurate understanding of the biogenetic basis of the disorder. However, lay beliefs often manifest aspects of culture, and much of this work has been conducted in western cultures. In this study, 215 undergraduate university students in Macau, a Special Administrative Region of China, completed self-report measures assessing two beliefs concerning autism spectrum disorder etiology: (1) a belief in parental factors and (2) a belief in genetic factors. Potential correlates of lay beliefs were sought in culture-specific values, and more universal social axioms. Participants were significantly more likely to endorse parenting, relative to genetic factors, as etiological. A perceived parental etiology was predicted by values of mind-body holism. Beliefs in a parental etiology were not predicted by values assessing collectivism, conformity to norms, a belief in a family's ability to obtain recognition through a child's achievement, or interpersonal harmony, nor by the social axioms measured (e.g. social cynicism, reward for application, social complexity, fate control, and religiosity). Beliefs in a genetic etiology were not predicted by either culture-specific values or social axioms. Implications of the current results are discussed.
    Autism 09/2015; DOI:10.1177/1362361315602372 · 3.50 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "In this study, the changes that occurred during the first year of treatment were generally maintained throughout the second and third years for children in all three groups. Group mean scores in Years 2 and 3 tended to remain within AE5 points of the corresponding group means at the end of Year 1, with the large differences in favor of IBT after one year largely persisting throughout Years 2 and 3. Other studies comparing IBT with eclectic treatment over similar time periods have produced similar findings (Cohen et al., 2006; Eikeseth et al., 2007). One difference is that the IBT advantage was larger after a mean of 31.4 months of treatment than after one year of treatment in the study by Eikeseth et al. (2007). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In a previous study, we compared the effects of just over one year of intensive behavior analytic intervention (IBT) provided to 29 young children diagnosed with autism with two eclectic (i.e., mixed-method) interventions (Howard, Sparkman, Cohen, Green, & Stanislaw, 2005). One eclectic intervention (autism programming; AP) was designed specifically for children with autism and was intensive in that it was delivered for an average of 25-30h per week (n=16). The other eclectic intervention (generic programming; GP) was delivered to 16 children with a variety of diagnoses and needs for an average of 15-17h per week. This paper reports outcomes for children in all three groups after two additional years of intervention. With few exceptions, the benefits of IBT documented in our first study were sustained throughout Years 2 and 3. At their final assessment, children who received IBT were more than twice as likely to score in the normal range on measures of cognitive, language, and adaptive functioning than were children who received either form of eclectic intervention. Significantly more children in the IBT group than in the other two groups had IQ, language, and adaptive behavior test scores that increased by at least one standard deviation from intake to final assessment. Although the largest improvements for children in the IBT group generally occurred during Year 1, many children in that group whose scores were below the normal range after the first year of intervention attained scores in the normal range of functioning with one or two years of additional intervention. In contrast, children in the two eclectic treatment groups were unlikely to attain scores in the normal range after the first year of intervention, and many of those who had scores in the normal range in the first year fell out of the normal range in subsequent years. There were no consistent differences in outcomes at Years 2 and 3 between the two groups who received eclectic interventions. These results provide further evidence that intensive behavior analytic intervention delivered at an early age is more likely to produce substantial improvements in young children with autism than common eclectic interventions, even when the latter are intensive.
    Research in Developmental Disabilities 09/2014; 35(12):3326-3344. DOI:10.1016/j.ridd.2014.08.021 · 3.40 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Most of the studies were case–control or quasi-experimental comparison studies. The studies varied in their sample size and age range of the participants [Cohen et al. 2006 (n = 42; age range 18–42 months); Eldevik et al. 2012 (n = 43; age range 24–72 months); Eldevik et al. 2006 (n = 28; age range 21–69 months); Grindle et al. 2012 (n = 29; age range 36–84 months); Howard et al. 2005 (n = 45; mean age = 31 months); Zachor and Ben-Itzchak (2010) (n = 78; age range 15–35 months)], and compared EIBI to eclectic or special education treatment. These studies reported EIBI was superior to other approaches. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Variability in clinical expression and in intervention outcome has been described in autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The study examined progress after 1 and 2 years of intervention and compared the impact of baseline cognitive ability on outcome trajectories in 46 children (m = 25.5 months) with ASD. The entire group showed a gradual decrease in autism severity and increase in verbal cognitive scores. Only the low cognitive scores (DQ <70) group significantly improved in fine motor and receptive language scores. Significant gains in adaptive skills were found only for the high cognitive scores (DQ ≥70) group after 2 years of intervention. The entire group progressed with intervention, but only children with higher cognitive levels at baseline transferred their acquired socio-communication skills into daily functioning.
    Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 08/2014; 44:2221-2229. DOI:10.1007/s10803-014-2091-0 · 3.06 Impact Factor
Show more


19 Reads
Available from