Implementing early intensive behavioral intervention in community settings

Plavnick, Joshua B.; Bak, M. Y. Savana; Avendano, Sarah M.; Dueñas, Ana D.; Brodhead, Matthew T.; Sipila, Emma S.

doi:10.1177/1362361320919243

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants received services from a community‐based early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) program for children with autism spectrum disorder (see Plavnick et al, 2020, for a description) for approximately 6–18 months and were exposed to multiple MSWO preference assessments each treatment day as a matter of course. Sipila‐Thomas et al (2021) collected all data on site at the EIBI program.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An evaluation of preference stability within MSWO preference assessments for children with autism

Melanson,

Thomas,

Brodhead

et al. 2023

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has commonly evaluated preference stability over time and across multiple preference assessment administrations. No studies have evaluated shifts in preference across consecutive rounds of a single preference assessment, where rounds refer to each time the experimenter resets the stimulus-presentation array. The purpose of the present study was to examine the stability of stimulus selections across successive rounds of a multiple-stimulus-without-replacement (MSWO) preference assessment with different classes of stimuli for children with autism. The study involved a secondary data analysis and calculation of preference stability across consecutive rounds using Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients (Spearman's ρ) for 17 participants across 40 MSWO preference assessments. Patterns of preference stability were observed in 24 out of the 40 assessments (60%) indicating that children's preferences in this study were slightly more likely to be classified as stable than other observed patterns of responding.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An evaluation of preference stability within MSWO preference assessments for children with autism

Melanson,

Thomas,

Brodhead

et al. 2023

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Though ELI initially began in a university-based setting in August 2015, staggered implementation was replicated at two community settings over the next 2 years (August 2016(August , 2017. To read more about the development of ELI, please refer to Plavnick et al (2020).…”

Section: Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Notably, ELI was developed to expand access to EIBIs for families receiving services through Medicaid (Plavnick et al, 2020). As many children receive services from community-based agencies, effectively translating EIBIs to this context can ensure service consistency and quality, which is crucial for the successful development of young autistic children (Plavnick et al, 2020). Though ELI initially began in a university-based setting in August 2015, staggered implementation was replicated at two community settings over the next 2 years (August 2016(August , 2017.…”

Section: Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Community-based implementation strategy use and satisfaction: A mixed-methods approach to using the ERIC compilation for organizations serving children on the autism spectrum

Bustos

Sridhar

Drahota

2021

Implementation Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Despite efforts to use standardized taxonomy and research reporting, documenting implementation strategies utilized in community settings remains challenging. This case study demonstrates a practical approach to gather use of and satisfaction with implementation strategies utilized within community-based sites to understand community providers’ perspectives of implementing an early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) for children on the autism spectrum across different settings. Methods Using a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, survey and interview data were collected from directors/supervisors and direct providers ( n = 26) across three sites (one university and two community-based replication sites). The Implementation Strategies and Satisfaction Survey (ISSS) was administered to identify staff-reported implementation strategy use and satisfaction. Informed by quantitative results, follow-up semi-structured interviews were conducted with a subsample ( n = 13) to further understand staff experiences with endorsed implementation strategies and elicit recommendations for future efforts. Results Survey results were used to demonstrate frequencies of implementation strategies endorsed by site and role. Overall, staff felt satisfied with implementation strategies used within their agencies. Content analysis of qualitative data revealed three salient themes related to implementation strategy use—context, communication, and successes and challenges—providing in-depth detail on how strategies were utilized, and strategy effectiveness based on community providers’ experiences. Recommendations were also elicited to improve strategy use within “broader” community settings. Conclusions The project demonstrated a practical approach to identifying and evaluating implementation strategies used within sites delivering autism services. Reporting implementation strategies using the ISSS can provide insight into community providers’ perspectives and satisfaction with agency implementation strategy use that can generate more relevant and responsive strategies to address barriers in community settings. Plain language abstract Examining community providers’ preferences and experiences with implementation strategies used to facilitate evidence-based practice uptake can broaden our understanding of what, how, and why implementation strategies work in community-based settings ( Chaudoir et al., 2013 ; Leeman et al., 2017 ; Proctor et al., 2013 ). Such efforts have great potential to tailor implementation strategies to address barriers/facilitators typically found in community-based settings. This case study demonstrates a practical approach using mixed methodology to: (a) gather self-reported use of and satisfaction with implementation strategies to understand community providers’ perspectives of implementation strategy success. Using a new survey, the Implementation Strategies and Satisfaction Survey (ISSS) conjoined with interviews, the study demonstrated a practical approach using standardized language to report strategies used in one university-based site and two community-based replication sites that deliver an early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) for children on the autism spectrum. This paper contributes to one of the five priorities to enhance public health impact—improve tracking and reporting of implementation strategies utilized when translating research into practice ( Dingfelder & Mandell, 2011 ; Powell et al., 2019 ; Stahmer et al., 2019 ). This approach emphasizes the importance of understanding context (e.g., community organizations providing services to children on the autism spectrum) to develop strategies that work better for EIBI implementation and scale-up. Understanding community provider's preferences and experiences with implementation strategies can support use of implementation strategies that better fit usual care contexts, with the ultimate goal of improving implementation practice in community-based settings.

show abstract

“…Example completed stimulus without replacement preference assessment (MSWO) data sheet (Plavnick et al, 2020)…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Providing Choice-Making Opportunities to Students With Autism During Instruction

White

Oteto

Brodhead

2022

TEACHING Exceptional Children

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One antecedent-based intervention – choice-making opportunities – is an easy and effective way to motivate students with autism to stay on task, complete academic tasks, and engage in appropriate behavior during academic instruction. The purpose of this article is to discuss three main methods for incorporating choice-making opportunities and describe how educators of students with autism can incorporate choice-making opportunities during academic instruction. Seven steps for implementing choice-making opportunities and examples of how to implement choice-making opportunities during instruction are provided. We intend for readers to: (1) read and comprehend the three methods for implementing choice-making opportunities during instruction, (2) apply the seven steps when implementing choice-making, and (3) use the tables as guide when implementing choice-making during instruction.

show abstract

Implementing early intensive behavioral intervention in community settings

Cited by 7 publications

References 11 publications

An evaluation of preference stability within MSWO preference assessments for children with autism

An evaluation of preference stability within MSWO preference assessments for children with autism

Community-based implementation strategy use and satisfaction: A mixed-methods approach to using the ERIC compilation for organizations serving children on the autism spectrum

Providing Choice-Making Opportunities to Students With Autism During Instruction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About