Title |
Comparative Efficacy of LEAP, TEACCH and Non-Model-Specific Special Education Programs for Preschoolers with Autism Spectrum Disorders
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Autism and 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. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Germany | 1 | 14% |
France | 1 | 14% |
United States | 1 | 14% |
Canada | 1 | 14% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
Scientists | 2 | 29% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 4 | 1% |
Spain | 3 | <1% |
Canada | 2 | <1% |
Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
United States | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 297 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 59 | 19% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 41 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 41 | 13% |
Researcher | 36 | 12% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 24 | 8% |
Other | 49 | 16% |
Unknown | 58 | 19% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 99 | 32% |
Social Sciences | 56 | 18% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 7% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 6% |
Computer Science | 10 | 3% |
Other | 35 | 11% |
Unknown | 65 | 21% |