Moving Beyond the Intensive Behavior Treatment Versus Eclectic Dichotomy

Abstract

Professionals serving students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) in inclusive classroom settings face the challenge of selecting and successfully implementing evidence-based intervention strategies. Many propose that Intensive Behavioral Treatment (IBT) is the most efficacious approach for learners with ASD. Evidence for this approach is often established by comparing the IBT model to a condition described as "eclectic". In this paper, authors examine the IBT vs. eclectic literature, acknowledge the potential efficacy of the IBT model with preschool-aged children, suggest concerns about efficacy studies that have compared IBT and eclectic programs, point out that most of the studies were restricted in the age range of their participants, and note that few were implemented in inclusive settings. The authors propose that a technical eclectic approach can be beneficial for children and youth with ASD if it is conceptually grounded, incorporates evidence-based focused intervention practices, and is well implemented. A detailed example of such a technical eclectic program model is provided and the practicality of such an approach in inclusive settings for children and youth with ASD and their families is discussed.

Children who screen positive for autism at 2.5 years and receive early intervention: a prospective naturalistic 2-year outcome study

“…However, our findings accord with conclusions put forward by Odom et al in their review 43. They reported a comparison of intensive behavioral treatment programs with eclectic interventions and concluded that eclectic programs had a positive impact on development, learning, and life outcomes in children and youth with autism when being well implemented.…”

Publication bias in studies of an applied behavior‐analytic intervention: An initial analysis

“…We identified published articles and unpublished doctoral dissertations on PRT through a search of PsycINFO with the key terms (a) pivotal response treatment, pivotal response training, or natural language paradigm (NLP; an earlier name for this treatment) and (b) autism, pervasive developmental disorder, or Asperger's. We checked for additional references in the reviews by the NAC (2009) and National Professional Development Center (Odom et al, 2012). Table 1 summarizes the focus of the review, and Figure 1 provides a more detailed flow chart of the literature search process (Moher et al, 2009).…”

“…Thus, the risk of publication bias in genuine SSED studies of ABA remains unknown. The need to evaluate this risk has heightened in recent years, because investigators have increasingly sought to identify evidencebased practices by synthesizing data from SSED studies, particularly for individuals with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD; e.g., National Autism Center [NAC], 2009;Odom, Hume, Boyd, & Stabel, 2012;Reichow, Doehring, Cicchetti, & Volkmar, 2011). Evaluation of publication bias is widely regarded as essential in systematic reviews of group studies (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009) yet is rarely performed or even mentioned in reviews of SSED studies, indicating that SSED investigators are unaware of or unconcerned about such bias.…”

Services for children with autism spectrum disorder in three, large urban school districts: Perspectives of parents and educators

“…Investigators have identified numerous efficacious intervention strategies for teaching new skills to children with ASD (Odom et al, 2012); however, related studies have generally taken place in specialized centers or other highly controlled settings such as experimenter-run summer camps and classrooms (Kasari and Smith, 2013). Interventions often are developed without consideration for school resources, which may limit the adoption and sustainability of these treatments.…”