This randomized field trial comparing Strategies for Teaching based on Autism Research and Structured Teaching enrolled educators in 33 kindergarten-through-second-grade autism support classrooms and 119 students, aged 5–8 years in the School District of Philadelphia. Students were assessed at the beginning and end of the academic year using the Differential Ability Scales. Program fidelity was measured through video coding and use of a checklist. Outcomes were assessed using linear regression with random effects for classroom and student. Average fidelity was 57% in Strategies for Teaching based on Autism Research classrooms and 48% in Structured Teaching classrooms. There was a 9.2-point (standard deviation = 9.6) increase in Differential Ability Scales score over the 8-month study period, but no main effect of program. There was a significant interaction between fidelity and group. In classrooms with either low or high program fidelity, students in Strategies for Teaching based on Autism Research experienced a greater gain in Differential Ability Scales score than students in Structured Teaching (11.2 vs 5.5 points and 11.3 vs 8.9 points, respectively). In classrooms with moderate fidelity, students in Structured Teaching experienced a greater gain than students in Strategies for Teaching based on Autism Research (10.1 vs 4.4 points). The results suggest significant variability in implementation of evidence-based practices, even with supports, and also suggest the need to address challenging issues related to implementation measurement in community settings.
The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which public school teachers implemented evidence-based interventions for students with autism in the way these practices were designed. Evidence-based practices for students with autism are rarely incorporated into community settings, and little is known about the quality of implementation. An indicator of intervention quality is procedural implementation fidelity (the degree to which a treatment is implemented as prescribed). Procedural fidelity likely affects student outcomes. This project examined procedural implementation fidelity of three evidence-based practices used in a randomized trial of a comprehensive program for students with autism in partnership with a large, urban school district. Results indicate that teachers in public school special education classrooms can learn to implement evidence-based strategies; however they require extensive training, coaching, and time to reach and maintain moderate procedural implementation fidelity. Procedural fidelity over time, and across intervention strategies is examined.
The findings illustrate that the strength of intentions, which varies depending on the specific practice, can predict implementation. More generally, the studies demonstrate how measures of intention can aid efforts to identify implementation barriers. The approach taken can be applied to study implementation of any practices designed to improve student health.
Implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) for children with autism is challenging for teachers because these practices are often complex, requiring significant training and resources that are not available in most school settings. This brief investigation was designed to identify areas of strength and difficulty for teachers implementing one such EBP, pivotal response training (PRT). Observational data were gathered from 41 teachers participating in two separate investigations involving PRT. Despite differences in training procedures, teachers demonstrated similarities in areas of strength (clear opportunities/instruction and child choice) and difficulty (turn taking and multiple cues). These findings suggest next steps toward systematic adaptation of PRT for classroom use. The research may serve as a model for the process of adapting EBPs for practice settings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.