Applying an Implementation Science Framework for Adoption of a Comprehensive Program for High School Students With Autism Spectrum Disorder

Abstract

Current systems are perfectly 'designed' to produce their current results" (Fixsen, Blase, Metz, & Van Dyke, 2013, p. 224). This adage implies that the outcomes generated by programs are a function of the practices implemented by those programs. For many students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), high school programs often lead to unemployment, inactivity, continued residence with the family in adulthood, and social isolation, especially if those students have severe impairments and/or are from low-income families (Shattuck et al., 2012). While these outcomes are influenced in part by factors operating outside of the schools' control (e.g., lack of ongoing support in the community), this does not absolve researchers or educators from the responsibility for post-school outcomes. It is also important to note that the poor outcomes following years of schooling are not intentional. Teachers and service providers wish the best for teenagers with ASD and work hard to achieve positive effects. But for many teenagers with ASD and their families, independence, social integration, and employment after high school can be elusive (Test, Smith, & Carter, in this special issue).An active research literature on interventions and instructional approaches exists for children and youth with ASD. However, most comprehensive treatment models (Odom, Boyd, Hall, & Hume, in press) and focused intervention practices (Wong et al., 2013) have been conducted with preschool-and elementary-school-aged children. To date, few programs have been designed specifically for adolescents with ASD in high school settings.Moreover, the complexity surrounding high school programs and students with ASD make introducing and supporting change in practice a wicked problem. Fixsen et al. (2013) described wicked problems as "those that are difficult to define and that fight back when you try to solve them" (p. 218). There is probably no more wicked a 519826R SEXXX10.

"I m Not Trained for This " And Other Barriers to Evidence-Based Social Skills Interventions for Elementary Students with High Functioning Autism in Inclusion

“…Research supports a team/collaborative approach to spur the successful implementation of EBPs for autism (Donaldson & Stahmer;Odom et al, 2014). Since many staff do not feel ready to implement desired systemic changes, leaders are encouraged to communicate with staff to develop a deeper understanding of their concerns (Odom et al, 2014). As prior noted, research suggests that some students with HFA can sense a teacher's attitudes toward them and that any teacher-student conflict can contribute to feelings of rejection or loneliness within inclusive settings (Mazurek, Kanne, & Wodka, 2013;Zeedyk, Cohen, Eisenhower, & Blacher, 2016).…”

“…Therefore, to facilitate implementation of EBPs, districts should seek to involve their stakeholders and increase collaboration between administrators, staff, parent, and students. Research supports a team/collaborative approach to spur the successful implementation of EBPs for autism (Donaldson & Stahmer;Odom et al, 2014). Since many staff do not feel ready to implement desired systemic changes, leaders are encouraged to communicate with staff to develop a deeper understanding of their concerns (Odom et al, 2014).…”

Transitioning Together: A Multi-family Group Psychoeducation Program for Adolescents with ASD and Their Parents

“…Future work should extend this work and evaluate the multi-family group psychoeducation approach for families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and consider what possible adaptations may be needed to the curriculum. This gap is beginning to be addressed through the work of the Center on Secondary Education for Students with Autism study which includes a large, national sample with youth and families from diverse backgrounds (Kuhn, Borjas, & Smith, 2015; Odom, Duda, Kucharczyk, Cox, & Stabel, 2014). Third, we note that our study focused on adolescents with high functioning ASD (i.e., verbally fluently and primarily served in general education settings); additional research is needed to examine the effects of the program for adolescents with different support needs.…”

Pebbles, rocks, and boulders: The implementation of a school-based social engagement intervention for children with autism

“…Little is known about the factors that influence the use of autism EBPs in schools. Understanding the factors that influence schools’ adoption and continued use of new interventions, specifically EBPs for autism, can lead to more effective strategies to support the sustained use of these interventions and, more generally, advance the field of implementation science (Odom, Duda, Kucharczyk, Cox, & Stabel, 2014). Implementation factors may ultimately inform autism intervention fidelity within school settings, which historically has varied in studies where non-research personnel (e.g., teachers, paraprofessionals) served as interventionists (Pellecchia et al, 2015; Locke et al, 2015; Mandell et al, 2013; Stahmer et al, 2015; Suhrheinrich et al, 2013).…”