↓ Skip to main content

Comparative Efficacy of LEAP, TEACCH and Non-Model-Specific Special Education Programs for Preschoolers with Autism Spectrum Disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
184 Mendeley
Title
Comparative Efficacy of LEAP, TEACCH and Non-Model-Specific Special Education Programs for Preschoolers with Autism Spectrum Disorders
Published in
Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, June 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10803-013-1877-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian A. Boyd, Kara Hume, Matthew T. McBee, Michael Alessandri, Anibal Gutierrez, LeAnne Johnson, Laurie Sperry, Samuel L. Odom

Abstract

LEAP and TEACCH represent two comprehensive treatment models (CTMs) that have been widely used across several decades to educate young children with autism spectrum disorders. The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to compare high fidelity LEAP (n = 22) and TEACCH (n = 25) classrooms to each other and a control condition (n = 28), in which teachers in high quality special education programs used non-model-specific practices. A total of 198 children were included in data analysis. Across conditions, children's performances improved over time. This study raises issues of the replication of effects for CTMs, and whether having access to a high quality special education program is as beneficial as access to a specific CTM.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
Spain 3 2%
Canada 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Unknown 172 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 16%
Researcher 22 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 11%
Student > Bachelor 20 11%
Other 46 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 60 33%
Social Sciences 49 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 9%
Unspecified 17 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 5%
Other 31 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 85. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 November 2018.
All research outputs
#181,490
of 12,996,276 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders
#58
of 3,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,197
of 150,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders
#2
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,996,276 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,205 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 150,468 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.