Exploring the Effectiveness of a Peer-Mediated Model of the PEERS Curriculum: A Pilot Randomized Control Trial

Abstract

This study compared immediate and 4-month outcomes among adolescents with autism spectrum disorder randomly assigned to the PEERS curriculum (n = 10), a peer mediated PEERS curriculum (n = 12), or a delayed treatment control group (n = 12). Findings suggest a modest advantage in social skills knowledge and social functioning for participants in the peer-mediated PEERS curriculum relative to Traditional PEERS, and gains in social skills knowledge, social functioning, and reductions in loneliness were maintained in one or both treatment groups at a 4-month follow-up. Typically developing peer mentors (n = 16) showed improvements in social skills knowledge and marginal improvements in autism knowledge and loneliness. Future research with a larger sample and objective outcome measures is needed.

KONTAKT© in Australian Adolescents on the Autism Spectrum: Protocol of a Randomized Control Trial

“…A search of the current literature evaluating SSGTs for adolescents via randomized controlled trials (RCTs), identified a number of design and intervention limitations. Consistent design limitations included small sample sizes (9,(27)(28)(29)(30)(31), failing to employ blinded or external observer-report measurement of dependent variables (17,20,27,29,30,(32)(33)(34)(35), failing to describe the randomization processes (27, 29-31, 33, 34) or employ allocation concealment (17,20,(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36), limited application of intent-to-treat data analysis (17,(27)(28)(29)(30)(32)(33)(34)(35), a lack of clarity in regard to compliance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (20,27,29,30,35,36), and limited examples of mixed methods studies integrating quantitative and qualitative data collection methods and analysis in understanding the outcomes of interventions…”

“…A range of identified intervention shortcomings included limited consideration or incorporation of adolescents' personal goals (20, 27-31, 33, 34, 36), outcomes largely measured by parent proxy report (17,28,29,31,32,35,36), inadequate tailoring of interventions to individual activity preferences (20,29,30,(33)(34)(35)(36), failing to consider the relationship between intervention dosage (that is the number of sessions) and outcomes (20,(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(33)(34)(35)(36), the absence of cost analysis (17,20,(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36) and limited reporting of adverse events during the intervention period (20, 27-30, 32-34, 36) (Additional file 1). While comparison groups varied considerably, most examined the efficacy of SSGT interventions relative to usual care waitlist control groups, with limited description of what interventions and therapies were received by comparison groups.…”

“…While comparison groups varied considerably, most examined the efficacy of SSGT interventions relative to usual care waitlist control groups, with limited description of what interventions and therapies were received by comparison groups. To date, only three studies have compared the efficacy of SSGT interventions against an active control group (29,30,36) limiting understanding of the influence of confounding factors, such as exposure to social context, on the outcomes of SSGT interventions. As a result, it remains unknown whether the benefits of receiving a SSGT intervention result from significant exposure to a peer group or whether they can be attributed to the social skills training and psychoeducational components of these interventions.…”

“…In this context understanding the economic costs and benefits of interventions such as KONTAKT© is relevant not only to government agencies and services providers, but to individuals living with ASD and their families. While several interventions in ASD have shown moderate to large effect sizes (9,(28)(29)(30)34), the absence of a cost analysis makes it difficult for all stake holders to estimate their cost effectiveness, either in the short or longer term (96). In addressing this limitation, the current study will obtain data on health-related costs for both the intervention and control groups.…”

KONTAKT© in Australian Adolescents on the Autism Spectrum: Protocol of a Randomized Control Trial

“…A search of the current literature evaluating SSGTs for adolescents via randomized controlled trials (RCTs), identified a number of design and intervention limitations. Consistent design limitations included small sample sizes (9,(27)(28)(29)(30)(31), failing to employ blinded or external observer-report measurement of dependent variables (17,20,27,29,30,(32)(33)(34)(35), failing to describe the randomization processes (27, 29-31, 33, 34) or employ allocation concealment (17,20,(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36), limited application of intent-to-treat data analysis (17,(27)(28)(29)(30)(32)(33)(34)(35), a lack of clarity in regard to compliance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (20,27,29,30,35,36), and limited examples of mixed methods studies integrating quantitative and qualitative data collection methods and analysis in understanding the outcomes of interventions (17) (Additional fil...…”