Powerpoint
stephley85
Stephanie3pptslides.pptxProcedure
ASD children
92 children recruited
16 Funded multidisciplinary centers
Using DSM-IV-TR
8 children with Dx. at HR for ASD
5 treatment centers used ABA
6 treatment centers used Imitation & TAU
7 children dropped out
85 children, ages 22-75 months
5 treatment centers TAU
Characteristics investigated
Age
Autism severity
Time elapsed
Maternal & paternal
Gender
IQ
Education
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR).
Children divided into 3 intervention groups.
1
Results
Based on 3 interventions
ABA - Applied Behavior Analysis
JA- Joint attention
TAU- Treatment as usual.
Study was analyzed based on comparison of treatment between intervention groups.
Using 2 repeated MANOVA Analysis
Results from questionnaires were analyzed differently.
Descriptive statistics for pre & post measurement in the different intervention groups of all dependent variables.
Test results revealed no interaction between intervention group & time, which means that the progress children made, was not different in the 3 intervention groups.
There was an effect of time irrespective of intervention group.
Time
Intervention group
There was no stastical difference in intervention groups and the various intervention measures carried out.
2
Individual variability
| Progress | Age | Outcomes | % of Progress | |
| 1 | Measurement of interventions | 22- 75 months | Imitation, Pretend Play, language abilities & adaptive behavior. | All three intervention groups (ABA, TAU, & JA) |
| Good progress | > 6 months in AE | 3 or 4 outcomes. | 26% | |
| Moderate to good progress | 3-5 months in AE | 3 outcomes | 7% | |
| Mixed progress | Normal development plan | 1-2 outcomes | 34% | |
| Limited to moderate progress | 3-5 months | 1-2 outcomes | 14% | |
| Limited progress | No progress or deteriorated | Not ˃ 2 months, | 19% |
This is a simplified table of how the results were presented. For the various interventions they employed, there had to be measurements. They classified progress into categories of good to little progress (5 categories). Then, defined the ages that would signify if a child has undergone improvement or not, depending on how good they perform in different outcomes like Imitation, pretend play etc. Then analyze the total progress percentages of all three interventions.
3
Predicting Outcomes
1. No difference in average scores for different intervention groups.
Used global progress categories over multiple regression analysis.
This enables better analysis of outcomes.
Predictors: Age, IQ-category, autism severity & treatment intensity & number of months in intervention.
2. Significant difference in education types in intervention groups.
3. Found that children in different types of education progressed differently
regular education,
regular education with support,
special education and not in school yet.
4. Merging of progress, intervention groups & analyzing of continuous predictors to ensure enough observations.
5. Age was omitted as a factor.
6. Education type & IQ were the only significant predictors using multinomial regression analysis.
total number of hours of intervention a week, number of hours of 1:1 intervention.
Predictors were used as outcomes- as stated.
4
