Applied behavior analysis and the movement to restructure schools: Compatibilities and opportunities for collaboration

Randomized, Controlled Trial of the LEAP Model of Early Intervention for Young Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders

“…At the end of our 2-year consultation process, the lead teacher in each intervention class was asked to complete a 5-point rating scale (see Appendix C) that was designed to assess consumers’ judgments on key dimensions of their consultation relationship with LEAP coaches. The 14 dimensions of social validity were based on Kohler and Strain’s (1992) review of practice dimensions shown to influence long-term use of evidence-based practices.…”

“…These components include (a) teaching typical children to facilitate the social and communicative competence of their class peers with ASD, (b) teaching Individualized Education Plan (IEP) objectives within routine class activities, and (c) providing extensive skill training for family members to address child behavior issues in home and community settings. The summarized results from these areas of study follow: (a) Typically developing peers as young as 36 months can be taught to utilize facilitative social and communicative initiations with their peers with ASD (Goldstein & Wickstrom, 1986; Strain & Bovey, 2008; Strain & Danko, 1995); (b) peers’ use of facilitative strategies result in higher rates of communicative interaction for preschoolers with ASD (Goldstein & Wickstrom, 1986; Kohler & Strain, 1999; Strain, 1987); (c) the peer facilitative strategies produce “day one” effects, suggesting that the delayed social and communicative abilities of many young children with ASD may be attributable, in part, to the socially nonresponsive, developmentally segregated settings in which they are most often educated (Kohler & Strain, 1992; Strain & Odom, 1986); (d) for many children who receive the peer-mediated intervention, their eventual level of social participation falls within the typical range for their age cohorts (Strain, 1987); (e) the potency of the peer-mediated intervention extends across both settings (Strain, 1987; Strain & Hoyson, 2000) and time (Strain et al, 1996); (f) the naturalistic or incidental teaching used at LEAP to influence cognitive outcomes yields approximately 1-month developmental gain for each month enrolled (Hoyson et al, 1985; Strain & Bovey, 2008; Strain & Cordisco, 1993); (g) when compared with one-to-one, tutorial instruction, the LEAP incidental teaching model yields more active engagement and more complex developmental skills by children with ASD and their typical peers (Kohler & Strain, 1999); and (h) LEAP’s parent skill training component produces broad-based and long-lasting effects, including (a) family use of skills in naturalistic contexts, (b) child behavior improvements in active engagement and challenging behaviors, (c) high levels of family satisfaction with the training program, and (d) decreased levels of stress and depression, especially as families exit the intervention program and move to what they perceive to be less supportive service programs (Strain, 1987, 1996). Together, the over 28 peer-reviewed component analysis studies far exceed the “efficacious” intervention criteria for within subject designs as established by Division 12 of the American Psychological Association (Lonigan, Elbert, & Johnson, 1998).…”

Prevent-Teach-Reinforce: Addressing Problem Behaviors of Students with Autism in General Education Classrooms

“…(3) establishing a systematic strategy for daily measurement of the target behaviors. For the daily measurement of target behaviors, we recommend the use of as-point "behavior rating scale" (BRS) (cf., Dunlap, lovannone, Wilson, Kincaid, Christiansen, et -al., 2010;Kohler & Strain, 1992), with detailed anchor descriptions defining the range of anticipated responding. The process of developing anchors for the BRS is described in the PTR manual (Dunlap, Behavioral Disorders, 36 (3), 160-171…”

Prevent-Teach-Reinforce

“…For the daily measurement of target behaviors, we recommend the use of a 5-point Behavior Rating Scale (BRS; cf. Kohler & Strain, 1992), with detailed anchor descriptions defining the range of anticipated responding. The process of developing anchors for the BRS is described in the case examples later in this article, as are displays of data yielded from the ratings.…”