Reference

 

Description

 

Smith et al., 2000

Examined effects of ABA treatment for children with autism and children with PDD-NOS. Mean intake age was 36 months. The diagnosis was set by an independent agency and based on the DSM-III criteria. Participants were matched on pre-treatment IQ and randomly assigned by an independent statistician to either an ABA treatment (n = 15) group or to a parent training group (n = 13). Participants in ABA group (seven with autism, eight with PDD-NOS)received a mean of 24.5 hours per week of one-to-one ABA treatment during the first year of intervention with a gradual reduction of treatment hours over the next two years. Participants in the control group (seven with autism, six with PDD-NOS)received three-to-nine months of parent training for several hours per week. Measures included IQ, visual-spatial IQ, language functioning, adaptive functioning, socioemotional functioning, academic achievement, class placement progress in treatment, and parent evaluation. Tests were carried out by independent assessors. There were no significant differences at intake on any of the measures. At follow-up the ABA treatment group scored significantly higher as compared to the parent training group on IQ, visual-spatial skills, language (assessed the by score combining comprehension and expression), school placement and academics, though not adaptive functioning and socioemotional functioning. The ABA treatment group gained an average of 16 IQ points ES = 2.21;???. By comparison, the parent training group lost one IQ point. Children with PDD-NOS gained more than those with autism.Twenty seven percent of the children in the ABA group achieved average posttreatment scores and were succeeding in regular education classrooms.

 

 

Eikeseth et al., 2002; Eikeseth et al., 2007

 

Compared effects of ABA and eclectic treatment for children with autism. Mean intake age was 5.5 years. The diagnosis was set by an independent agency and based on the ICD-10 criteria, and confirmed by the ADI-R. Group assignment to either an ABA treatment group (n = 13) or to an eclectic treatment group (n = 12) was based on availability of ABA supervisors and performed by a person who was independent of the study. Participants in the ABA treatment group received 28 hours per week of one-to-one ABA treatment during the first year of intervention with a gradual reduction of treatment hours over the next two years. Participants in the eclectic group received 29 hours per week of one-to-one eclectic treatment with a gradual reduction of treatment hours over the next two years. Measures included IQ, language functioning, adaptive functioning, maladaptive behavior and socioemotional functioning. Tests were carried out by independent assessors. There were no significant differences at intake on any of the measures. Follow-up assessment--conducted approximately 3 years after the treatment begun--showed that the ABA treatment group scored significantly higher as compared to the eclectic treatment group on intelligence, language, adaptive functioning, maladaptive functioning and on two of the subscales on the socioemotional assessment (social and aggression). The ABA treatment group gained an average of 25 IQ points, ES = 2.21; 12 points in adaptive functioning ES = 1.35. By comparison, the eclectic treatment group obtained average change of + 7 points in IQ, - 10 points in Adaptive Functioning. Seven of 13 children in the ABA group who scored within the range of mental retardation at intake scores within the average range (≥ 85) on both IQ and verbal IQ at follow-up, compared to 2 of 12 children in the eclectic treatment group. 

 

 

Howard et al., 2005

 

Compared effects of three treatment approaches on children with autism or PDD-NOS. Twenty-nine children received 25 to 40 hours per week one-to-one ABA treatment. A comparison group (n  = 16) received 30 hours per week of one-to-one or two-to-one eclectic intervention in public special education classrooms. A second comparison group (n = 16) received 15 hours per week public early intervention in small groups. Mean intake CA = 36 months. The diagnosis was set by an independent agency and based on the DSM-IV criteria. Measures included IQ, language functioning, and adaptive functioning. Tests were carried out by independent assessors. There were no significant differences at intake on any of the measures. Follow-up assessment--conducted approximately 14 months after the treatment begun--showed that the ABA treatment group scored significantly higher scores as compared to the two comparison groups on all measures. There were no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the two comparison groups. The ABA treatment group gained an average of 31 IQ points, ES = 1.73, 11 points in adaptive functioning, ES = .94. The comparison groups obtained average change of + 9 points in IQ, - 2 points in Adaptive Functioning. Learning rates at follow-up were also substantially higher for children in the ABA group than for participants in either of the other two comparison groups.

 

 

Cohen, et al., 2006

 

Compared effects of ABA treatment with special education provided at local public schools for children with autism or PDD-NOS. Participants’ mean age when the treatment begun was unspecified, but the mean age at diagnosis was 31.2 months (range 18 to 48 months) and all participants were less than 48 months by the onset of treatment. The diagnosis was set by an independent agency, based on the DSM-IV criteria and confirmed by the ADI-R. Group assignment to either an ABA treatment group (n = 21, 20 with autism and 1 with PDD-NOS) or to an eclectic treatment group (n = 21, 14 with autism and 7 with PDD-NOS) was based on parental preference. Participants in the ABA treatment group received 35 to 40 hours per week of one-to-one ABA treatment provided in a community setting. Participants in the comparison group received public community

Services. The child/teacher ratios varied from one-to-one to three-to-one. Classes operated for three to five days per week, for up to five hours per day. Speech, occupational, and behavioral therapy varied from 0 to 5 hours per week. Three of the children spent brief sessions (up to 45 minutes per day) mainstreamed in regular education. Measures included IQ, visual IQ, language functioning, and adaptive functioning. Assessments were carried out by independent assessors. There were no significant differences at intake on any of the measures, though the groups differed on some of the demographic variables. Most notably, the ABA group had significantly more children with autism (and less with PDD-NOS) as compared to the comparison group. Follow-up assessment--conducted approximately 3 years after the treatment begun--showed that the ABA treatment group scored significantly higher as compared to the two comparison groups on IQ and adaptive functioning, though not on visual IQ and language (language comprehension was marginally significant with p = .06). The ABA treatment group gained an average of 25 IQ points, ES = 1.52, 10 points in adaptive functioning, ES = 1.23. By comparison, the eclectic treatment group obtained average change of 4 points in IQ, - 3 points in Adaptive Functioning.

Six of the 21 ABA treated children were fully included into regular education without assistance, and 11 others were included with support; in contrast, only 1 comparison child was placed primarily in regular education. 

 

 

Remington et al., in press

 

Compared effects of ABA with treatment as usual for children with autism. Mean intake age was 37 months. The diagnosis was set by an independent agency and based on the ICD-10 criteria, and confirmed by the ADI-R. Group assignment to either an ABA treatment group (n = 23) or to a treatment as usual group (n = 21) was based on parental choice. Participants in the ABA treatment group received 25.6 hours per week of one-to-one ABA for two years. Participants in the comparison group received standard provision from the local education authorities. Number of one-to-one treatment hours in the treatment as usual group was unspecified. Measures included IQ, language functioning, adaptive functioning, rating scales and observation measures for child behavior, and self-report measure of parent well being. Tests were carried out by one of the authors of the study, but the assessor was not informed regarding which group the participants belonged to. There were no significant differences at intake on any of the measures. Follow-up assessment showed that the ABA treatment group scored significantly higher as compared to the comparison group on intelligence, but not on language functioning or adaptive behavior (as measured by standard scores). The ABA treatment group gained an average of 12 IQ points, ES = .72, whereas children in the comparison group lost, on average, two IQ points. Children in the ABA group showed an advantage over the comparison group in language functioning at follow-up, as more children in the ABA group reached basal on the Reynell comprehension and expression scales post treatment. The ABA group showed significantly better score on responding to joint attention as compared to the comparison group, but not in initiating joint attention. No other significant changes were reported in child outcome. On parental outcome, no significant group differences were found except that fathers of children in the ABA group showed higher degree of depression at follow-up.

 

 

Lovaas,1987; McEachin et al., 1993

 

The seminal outcome study examining effects of ABA treatment for children with autism. Nineteen children received 40 hours per week of one-to-one ABA treatment for a minimum of two years. A comparison group (n  = 19) received 10 hours or less per week one-to-one ABA treatment. Mean intake was CA = 33.3 months. A second comparison group (n = 21) came from the same agency that diagnosed the majority of the other participants and had received services generally available for children with autism in the area. The diagnosis for all percipients was set by an independent agency and based on the most current DSM system available at the time of the study. Intake measures included IQ and behavioral observations. Follow-up measures included IQ, adaptive behavior, personality and school palcment. Assessment of best outcome participants was carried out by independent and blind assessors. There were no significant between group differences at intake on any of the measures. Follow-up assessment--conducted when the children averaged 11.5 years of age--showed that the ABA treatment group scored significantly higher as compared to the comparison groups on IQ, adaptove functioning and school placement, but not on the personality measures. The ABA treatment group gained an average of 31 IQ points, 11 points in adaptive functioning, ES = .XX. The comparison groups obtained average change of + 9 points in IQ, - 2 points in Adaptive Functioning. Forty seven percent of the children in the ABA group achieved average posttreatment scores and was succeeding in regular education classrooms.

 

 

Eldevik et al., 2006

 

Compared effects of low intensity ABA and low intensity eclectic treatment for children with autism. Mean intake age was 51 months. The diagnosis was based on the ICD-10 criteria. Study design was retrospective. An examination of each child’s treatment record and a questionnaire completed by case supervisors determined group assignment. Children who had received treatment based only on ABA constituted the ABA group (n = 13). Children who had received a combination of two or more types of treatment comprised an eclectic group (n = 15). Group assignment was blind. Participants in the ABA treatment group received 12.5 hours per week of one-to-one ABA treatment for 20 months. Participants in the eclectic group received 12 hours per week of one-to-one eclectic treatment for 21 months. Measures included IQ, nonverbal intelligence, language functioning, adaptive functioning, psychopathology (no words, affectionate, toy play, peer play, stereotypes, temper tantrums, toilet trained, sum pathology). Diagnosis and assessment was not provided independently, but may be considered blind since the study was archival and hence not planned at the time of diagnosis and assessment. There were no significant differences at intake on any of the measures. Follow-up assessment showed that the ABA treatment group scored significantly higher as compared to the eclectic treatment group on intelligence, language, but not on adaptive functioning. On the pathology scale, the ABA group scored higher than the eclectic group on, affectionate, toy play, peer play, toilet trained, and sum pathology, but not on no words, temper tantrums, or stereotypes. The ABA treatment group gained an average of 8.2 IQ points, ES = .54. By comparison, the eclectic treatment group lost and average of 2.9 IQ points. The degree of mental retardation was reduced for 38% of the children in the ABA group, as compared to 7% in the eclectic group. Gains were more modest than those reported with children receiving more intensive behavioral treatment, and it is unclear whether they were clinically significant.

 

 

Sallows & Graupner, 2005

 

Examined effects of ABA treatment and parent managed ABA treatment for children with autism. Mean intake age was 36 months. The diagnosis was set by an independent agency, based on the DSM-IV criteria and confirmed by the ADI-R. Participants were matched on pre-treatment IQ and randomly assigned by an independent statistician to either an ABA treatment (n = 13) group or to parent managed ABA treatment (n = 10). Participants in ABA group received a mean of 37.6 hours per week of one-to-one treatment for two years. Participants in the parent managed ABA control group received a mean of 31.3 hours per week of one-to-one treatment for two years. It is unclear whether this difference in treatment intensity is statistically significant. Number of one-to-one hours decreased over the next two years as the children entered school. Measures included measures of IQ, visual-spatial IQ, language functioning, adaptive functioning, socioemotional functioning and autism symptoms (ADI-R). Pretests were carried out by the second author prior to group assignment. Posttests were conducted independently. There were no significant differences at intake on any of the measures. At follow-up there were no significant differences between groups at pre- or posttest. Combining children in both groups, pretest to posttest gains were significant for IQ, language comprehension and ADI-R Social Skills and ADI-R Communication, but not on visual-spatial IQ, expressive language, adaptive behavior, socioemotional functioning, and ADI-R Rituals. All children in both groups gained an average of 25 IQ points, ES = 2.56.Forty-eight-percentage of all children in both groups showed rapid learning, achieved average post treatment scores and were succeeding in regular education classrooms.

 

 

Smith, Buch, et al., 2000

 

Examined effects of parent managed ABA intervention for children with autism or PDD-NOS. Mean intake age was 36 months. The diagnosis was set by an independent agency and based on the DSM-III criteria. Six boys (four with autism) participated in the study. A multiple-baseline design across participants was used to assess children’s progress in treatment. Participants were randomly assigned to a baseline condition lasting one, three or five months. Participants and therapists received six one-day workshops over a five month period, with additional consultations over the next two-to-three years. During the first three months of treatment, participants received a mean of 26.2 hours of one-to-one treatment per week. Measures included IQ, language, adaptive functioning, and progress in treatment. Five of six children rapidly acquired skills when treatment begun, but only two of six children improved on standardized tests conducted two to three years into treatment.

 

 

Weiss, 1999

 

UCLA model 1:1 for 2 years (n=20)

 

 

Birnbrauer & Leach, 1993

 

Examined effects of ABA treatment for children with autism. Mean intake age was 39 months. The diagnosis was set by an independent agency and based on the DSM (1980) criteria. Fourteen children participated in the study. A one-group pretest-posttest design was used. In addition a multiple-baseline design across behaviors was used to help demonstrate relationship between treatment effect and program intervention. Participants received a mean of 20 hours per week of one-to-one ABA treatment for a period of two years. Measures included IQ, language functioning, and adaptive functioning, school placement and parent’s skills in behavioral techniques. Assessments of IQ, language functioning, and adaptive functioning were carried out independently. Results indicate significant change between intake and follow-up in mental age, developmental language functioning, and developmental adaptive functioning. In addition integrated school placement increased, and parents improved their skills in using behavioral techniques.

UCLA model for 18 hours per week of 1:1 for 2 years (n=9). Comparison with children not qualifying for study (n=5).

 

 

Scheinkopf & Siegel 1998

 

Examined effects of ABA treatment for children with autism and children with PDD-NOS. Mean intake age was 34 months. The diagnosis was made by consensus from two or more independent clinic staff and was based on the DSM-III criteria. Study design was retrospective. Participants were matched on pre-treatment CA, mental age, interval between pre and post assessments, diagnosis and sex. Eleven children (10 with autism) received ABA treatment and 11 children (10 with autism) received services available in the child’s local community. Participants in ABA group received a mean of 19.5 hours per week of one-to-one ABA treatment for an average of 15.7 months. Measures included IQ and autism symptoms. Assessments may be considered blind since the study was archival and hence not planned at the time of diagnosis and assessment. There were no significant differences at intake on any of the measures. At follow-up the ABA treatment group scored significantly higher as compared to the comparison group on both measure. The ABA treatment group gained an average of 26.9 IQ points. By comparison the comparison group gained two IQ points.

 

 

Andersen et al., 1987

 

Examined effects of ABA treatment for children with autism. Mean intake age was 43 months. The diagnosis was set by an independent agency and based on the DSM (1980) criteria. Fourteen children participated in the study. A one-group pretest-posttest design was used. In addition a multiple-baseline design across behaviors was used to help demonstrate relationship between treatment effect and program intervention. Participants received a mean of 20 hours per week of one-to-one ABA treatment for a period of two years. Measures included IQ, language functioning, and adaptive functioning, school placement and parent’s skills in behavioral techniques. Assessments of IQ, language functioning, and adaptive functioning were carried out independently. Results indicate significant change between intake and follow-up in mental age, developmental language functioning, and developmental adaptive functioning. In addition integrated school placement increased, and parents improved their skills in using behavioral techniques.

 

Bibby et al., 2002

 

Parent managed intervention based on UCLA model for unspecified number or hours per week of 1:1 treatment for at 2 years and 6 months. Pre-post design without single case control.

 

 

Handelman et al.,1991

 

ABA. Children working in self-contained (n=unspecified) or integrated classrooms (n=unspecified) for 11 months.

 

 

Harris et al., 1990

 

ABA. Children working in self-contained (n=5) or integrated classrooms (n=5) for 11 months. Pre-post design without single case control.

 

 

Harris et al., 1991

 

Children working in self-contained (n=unspesfied) or integrated classrooms (n=unspecified) for 11 months. Pre-post design without single case control.

 

 

Hoyson et al., 1984

 

15 hours per week of intervention in class of typically developing children (n=6) for 9 months. Some 1:1 treatment. Pre-post design without single case control.

 

 

Luiselli et al., 2000

 

UCLA model for 14 hours per week of 1:1 for 9 months (n=16). Pre-post design without single case control.