Effectiveness of a Manualized Summer Social Treatment Program for High-Functioning Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders

Abstract

This paper presents findings from the final two years of a four-year study investigating a manualized social treatment program for high-functioning children with autism spectrum disorders. The study sought to (1) replicate and expand findings from years one and two; (2) compare outcomes of participants who received response-cost feedback versus non-categorical feedback; and (3) provide further evidence of program feasibility. Results indicated significant improvements in social skills and problem behaviors, however no significant differences for face emotion recognition. Measures of several socially-related behaviors yielded mixed results based on rater. While parent ratings did not appear to favor one feedback format, staff ratings appeared to favor the response-cost format on some measures. Results also provided support for program feasibility.

Social Skill Group Interventions for Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorders: a Systematic Review

“…Individualization was achieved in a variety of ways, including treatment plans or target behaviors unique to each participant or customization of the broader group topics based on individual participant needs (e.g., Lopata et al 2008;Minihan et al 2011;Rose & Anketell 2009). These modifications allow researchers and clinicians to (a) target a large number of participants through the use of a group intervention and also (b) address the areas of greatest need for each individual.…”

“…An intensive social skills curriculum was noted in a summer program implemented by Lopata et al (2008). Lopata's summer treatment program took place for 6 hours per day, 5 days per week over 6 weeks, resulting in a total intervention duration of 180 hours, much higher than any other studies reported.…”

“…However, some described investigations evaluated adolescent social skills groups in school settings (Minihan et al 2011;Williams 1989) and other settings, such as on horseback (Gabriels et al 2012), at a musical theater company (Corbett et al 2011), in computer workshops (Wright et al 2011), and in summer camps (Lopata et al 2008). While most studies reviewed took place in the USA, several were conducted in other countries, such as Germany (Herbrecht et al 2009), Scotland (MacKay et al 2007), Ireland (Minihan et al 2011;Rose & Anketell 2009), Italy (Valenti et al 2010), and South Korea (Shin et al 2012).…”

“…The researchers identified this strategy as a method to adhere to a manual-based intervention while retaining sufficient flexibility to meet the specific needs of each individual. Lopata et al (2008) also described the selection of three or four unique target skills for each child, unrelated to the group curriculum. While all participants in this study received feedback on their target skills, those that were randomized to a response-cost condition earned and lost points based on the use of these specific skills.…”

Treatment Fidelity Over the Last Decade in Psychosocial Clinical Trials Outcome Studies: A Systematic Review

“…Manualisation enabled an intervention to be monitored for Treatment Fidelity levels according to the research protocols [4,7]. In the area of psychology and therapy implementations, a number of researchers have described manuals as a reliable and cost effective mechanism to support Treatment Fidelity to maximize targeted outcomes [10][11][12][13]. However, several researchers argue mutualized treatments do not ensure effective delivery of the treatment [14][15][16][17][18].…”