Varied treatment response in young children with autism: A relative comparison of structured and naturalistic behavioral approaches.

Only four children, all under 3 and all Caucasian, were studied, so the findings cannot be generalized. Mario stopped after 8 weeks, so his maintenance data are missing. Some children learned very few skills in some domains, and conclusions are uncertain. PRT was delivered with pre-determined targets, and generalization testing was somewhat contrived. Generalization was tested in another room of the home, not in community settings. Observers were not blind to treatment condition, though they were blind to treatment phase. Single-subject design limits ability to identify child characteristics that predict response. Children were also receiving an in-home program with parent training, so the study cannot separate the effect of any single component of that broader program.

No author conflict-of-interest declaration is provided in the supplied text. The publication types list NIH extramural and non-U.S. government support.

Do not read this as proof that DTT or PRT is better for young children with autism. Four children were studied, and each child showed a different pattern across language, play, and imitation. It should not be used to prescribe one approach for all language goals.