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.
