In 1987, Ivar Lovaas, at UCLA, published the first study to suggest that children with autism could make significant gains with treatment. A treatment group of nineteen children received 40 hours per week of EIBT (including discrete-trial instruction; aided integration into regular preschools and kindergartens; and structured, supervised play dates with neurotypical peers). Nine of these children (47%) developed IQ’s in the average range and were able to attend regular education classrooms independently. When independently assessed at an average age of 11 years (McEachin, Smith and Lovaas, 1993), eight of these children had maintained their gains, and were no longer diagnosed with any autism-spectrum disorders. This study also included a control group of nineteen children who received only 10 hours per week of behavioral intervention. No children in this group developed average IQ’s, or attended regular education placements.
Dramatic claims about new autism treatments are made every year. However, Lovaas’ results received tremendous attention, in large part because they were from a renowned scientist whose previous two decades of findings had been successfully replicated by other researchers.
In 2005, Glen Sallows and Jane Howard published two of the most significant replications of Lovass’ 1987 findings.
Sallows and his colleagues provided children with 31-38 hours per week of EIBT services. When assessed at age seven, 48% of these children demonstrated IQs’ in the average range, and were attending regular education placements.
Howard and her colleagues compared EIBT to special education programs. Twenty-nine children received EIBT, 16 children attended a 30-hour-per week special education program, and 16 children attended a 15-hour-per-week special education program. Children in the EIBT group demonstrated an average IQ increase of 31 points, while children in the two special education program demonstrated no statistically significant improvements in IQ scores. Despite receiving twice as many hours of intervention, the 30 hour-per-week special education group did no better than the 15-hour-per-week special education group on any measure of treatment outcome.
For further information about these studies, and information about the scientific validity of a broad range of popular autism treatments, visit the Association for Science in Autism Treatment’s web site at: www.asatonline.org
References
Howard, J.S., Sparkman, C.R., Cohen, H.G., Green, G., Stanislaw, H. (2005). A comparison of intensive behavior analytic and eclectic treatments for young children with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26, 359-83
Lovaas, O. I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in young autistic children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 3-9.
McEachin, J. J., Smith, T., & Lovaas, O. I. (1993). Long-term outcome for children with autism who received early intensive behavioral interventions. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 97, 359-372.
Sallows, G.O. & Graupner, T.D. (2005). Intensive behavioral treatment for children with autism: four-year outcome and predictors. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 110, 417-38.
1 comment:
There is no doubt that intensive (30-40 hrs per week) of ABA produces dramatic results and even "recovers" some children with autism, BUT Howard et al's study is flawed. Higher-functioning children were "hand-picked" for this study. Higher-functioning children will of course produce better results. Howard et al conducted their study through Valley Mountain Regional Center (VMRC) where a program called "EIBT" exists. Although children over the age of 3 are protected by the federal law called IDEA, these children's rights were often violated if they weren't high-functioning enough to "qualify" for EIBT. Children who don't "qualify" are warehoused in other less-intensive programs where only some of these programs receive a token amount of ABA and Discrete Trials. Some of these children are warehoused in McFall School in Manteca where Discrete Trials are delivered in a 2:1 format and for less than an hour a day.
Some children that have not "qualified" for EIBT and subsequently had their rights violated are those children that are minimally- or non-verbal, children who's families don't speak English, low-income children, and many more. Children that were accepted into the study had to maintain an 80% or better acquisition rate or face exiting into one of the lesser-intensive programs like McFall.
When looking at Howard et al's study, you must ask yourself that in an area with a demographic of approx 30% Hispanic families, why ALL of the families that were part of their study were English-only households? Couple that with Central Valley Autism Project's (CVAP) filing with the state of California Protection of Human Subjects that indicates no translators were needed since all families spoke English. Quite disturbing. And CVAP is a Lovaas "replication" site. Don't take my word for it. Read more at http://www.valleysnafu.com/eibt.htm
Post a Comment