Early Responsiveness to Intensive Behavioural Intervention Predicts Outcomes Among Preschool Children with Autism

Goin‐Kochel, Robin P.; Myers, Barbara J.; Hendricks, Dawn; Carr, Staci; Wiley, Shirley B.

doi:10.1080/10349120701330404

Cited by 19 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are consistent with observations (e.g., Lovaas & Smith, 1988) and subsequent research (e.g., Goin-Kochel et al, 2007;Sallows & Graupner, 1999Smith et al, 2000;Weiss, 1999;Weiss & Delmolino, 2006) suggesting that children who learn quickly in the early phases of treatment are more likely to graduate from EIBI and achieve independent functioning at school and in the community. Research that has utilized the ELM as a global measure of progress in the initial months of treatment generally supports the notion that mastery of the VI and EL domains, and to a lesser extent, the NVI domain, predicts posttreatment assessment scores and overall level of adaptive and social functioning at discharge (Sallows & Graupner, 1999, 2006Smith et al, 2000).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

An evaluation of the Early Learning Measure as a predictor of outcomes in early intensive behavioral intervention

Lewon

Ghezzi

2021

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

An evaluation of the Early Learning Measure as a predictor of outcomes in early intensive behavioral intervention

Lewon

Ghezzi

2021

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…109–416) and motivates research into possible factors that underlie individual variability in response to treatment. To date, most efforts have focused on physical factors (e.g., child age), neurodevelopmental indicators (e.g., dysmorphic features, head circumference), cognitive-language indicators (e.g., intelligence, receptive and expressive language abilities), social factors (e.g., social abilities, play skills), and autism severity (e.g., symptoms, behaviors) (Baker-Ericzen et al 2007; Ben-Itzchak and Zachor 2007, 2009; Eikeseth and Eikeseth 2009; Goin-Kochel et al 2007; Granpeesheh et al 2009; Perry et al 2011; Schreibman et al 2009; Sherer and Schreibman 2005; Smith et al 2004; Stoelb et al 2004; Sutera et al 2007; Szatmari et al 2003; Turner and Stone 2007; Yoder et al 2006; Zachor et al 2007). Other variables reflecting treatment-related factors—e.g., age of diagnosis, age of onset of treatment, and intensity of treatment (Granpeesheh et al 2009; Perry et al 2011; Rickards et al 2007; Turner and Stone 2007) have also been identified as outcome predictors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teacher and Child Predictors of Achieving IEP Goals of Children with Autism

Ruble

McGrew

2013

J Autism Dev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is encouraging that children with autism show a strong response to early intervention, yet more research is needed for understanding the variability in responsiveness to specialized programs. Treatment predictor variables from 47 teachers and children who were randomized to receive the COMPASS intervention (Ruble et al. in The collaborative model for promoting competence and success for students with ASD. Springer, New York, 2012a) were analyzed. Predictors evaluated against child IEP goal attainment included child, teacher, intervention practice, and implementation practice variables based on an implementation science framework (Dunst and Trivette in J Soc Sci 8:143–148, 2012). Findings revealed one child (engagement), one teacher (exhaustion), two intervention quality (IEP quality for targeted and not targeted elements), and no implementation quality variables accounted for variance in child outcomes when analyzed separately. When the four significant variables were compared against each other in a single regression analysis, IEP quality accounted for one quarter of the variance in child outcomes.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, investigators often find what they are searching for: as an example, proportionally fewer ESDM studies investigated IQ/DQ as predictor of treatment outcome compared to EIBI studies (7/11 studies = 63.6% for ESDM, as compared to 11/13 studies = 84.6% of EIBI studies). Several studies have found that “overall pre-treatment functioning” or “initial learning rate” are associated with later outcome [ 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 ], and this may lead to circular reasoning: children who are more likely to learn because they are skillful will learn more and sooner from interventions [ 47 ]. However, many other factors and confounding variables may influence the initial rate of learning, for example, the degree of response to reinforcers used during treatment [ 116 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential Predictors of Response to Early Start Denver Model vs. Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention in Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Asta

Persico

2022

Brain Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effectiveness of early intensive interventions for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is now well-established, but there continues to be great interindividual variability in treatment response. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify putative predictors of response to two different approaches in behavioral treatment: Early Intensive Behavioral Interventions (EIBI) and the Early Start Denver Model (ESDM). Both are based upon the foundations of Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA), but the former is more structured and therapist-driven, while the latter is more naturalistic and child-driven. Four databases (EmBase, PubMed, Scopus and WebOfScience) were systematically screened, and an additional search was conducted in the reference lists of relevant articles. Studies were selected if participants were children with ASD aged 12–48 months at intake, receiving either EIBI or ESDM treatment. For each putative predictor, p-values from different studies were combined using Fisher’s method. Thirteen studies reporting on EIBI and eleven on ESDM met the inclusion criteria. A higher IQ at intake represents the strongest predictor of positive response to EIBI, while a set of social cognitive skills, including intention to communicate, receptive and expressive language, and attention to faces, most consistently predict response to ESDM. Although more research will be necessary to reach definitive conclusions, these findings begin to shed some light on patient characteristics that are predictive of preferential response to EIBI and ESDM, and may provide clinically useful information to begin personalizing treatment.

show abstract

Early Responsiveness to Intensive Behavioural Intervention Predicts Outcomes Among Preschool Children with Autism

Cited by 19 publications

References 32 publications

An evaluation of the Early Learning Measure as a predictor of outcomes in early intensive behavioral intervention

An evaluation of the Early Learning Measure as a predictor of outcomes in early intensive behavioral intervention

Teacher and Child Predictors of Achieving IEP Goals of Children with Autism

Differential Predictors of Response to Early Start Denver Model vs. Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention in Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About