Does implementing a new intervention disrupt use of existing evidence-based autism interventions?
Melanie Pellecchia, Rinad S Beidas, Gwendolyn Lawson and 5 others
PMID 32431162WHAT IT FOUND
Giving teachers a computer-assisted autism program caused them to use existing one-to-one behavioral therapies less.
Teachers who received the software showed almost no growth in using these therapies over the year, while control teachers increased their use significantly.
Key findings
01Teachers using the computer program showed no growth in discrete trial training use, while control teachers increased use by 154%.
02Teachers using the computer program showed no growth in pivotal response training use, while control teachers increased use by 377%.
03Teachers viewed the computer program as a replacement for one-to-one instruction because it was easier to implement and helped with staffing shortages.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
EBP use was measured by teacher self-report rather than direct observation, which may be less accurate. The study did not measure how often classroom assistants implemented EBPs, though teachers were the primary implementers. The findings rely on a specific school district context with known resource constraints, which may not generalize to all settings.
Declared interests
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (N.I.H., Extramural).
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume the computer program improved student outcomes. The study measured teacher behavior, not child progress, and a separate trial by the same authors found no overall differences in child cognitive or language outcomes between the treatment and control groups.