ASD interventions Flashcards
Kasari (2010)
study of efficacy of _______ in those with ___
Randomised into intervention OR ____
the intervention took _ weeks
Results = improvment at end of - weeks for ———– but not ——–
OM = Attention
further imporvement in attention at 12 months BUT __ _________ _______
CRITICISMS
generalisable? SES
true effect of treatment or NI?
JASPER ASD
WLCG
8 JASPER WLCG
Attention
no comaprison data
the parents astay at home, qestion how well this generlaised to ASD kids with parents that work
the improvement could be natural even if the trajectory is atypical
Kasari (2015) ASD kids JASPER use PEI (whats the advantage?) sig imporvent are more meaningful BUT CI overlap
What is an advantage of the study (generalisation)
OM =
Psychoeducational intervention
control over the control group as provides other intervetion - howevern now no control for placebo effect
far larger sample
ig imporvments more meansingful becuase of the intervention
geenralised beyond the intervention into the classroom
Joint engagement
JASPER - train the trainer model
Shire et al (2017) TAU vs J
OM (4)
transfering lab intervention into community train TAs to adminster intervention
JASPER sig improvement over TAU in core developmental outcomes
JE, JA, PS
and epressive lang ability
WHat is the ESDM
Early start Denver model
Dawson and Rogers (1980s)
works with ABA principles, and play-based developmental and relational approaches to address social communication
Parent -lead or clinic based - parents choose most important outcomes to them
Dawson et al (2010)
__ -__ months (study length)
– toddlers
ASD diagnosis
I = 20hrs + 5 hrs
Retention =
1 year: IQ = , Year 2 IQ =
Adaptive behaviour = 2 years sig
ADOS = 2 years sig
RCT
18-30months
48 toddlers
diasnosed with ASD
15, 17
Rogers et al (2012)
WHAT CONCLUSIONS>
failed to replicate in parent led setting
despite doubling ss
ESDM = only effective when delivered 1:1 highly trained therapists over 20 hours a week
ABA
Lovaas and Koegel (1970s)
Wong & Kwan (2010)
randomised controlled trial - 17 toddlers
- week intervention
OM
2 week
crossover design
improvements not due to group IDs the intervention and control group should show the same gains
very useful design for small groups
langage and communction and reciporcal social interaction - ADOS
AT RISK LITERATURE (3 studies)- 1 LT)
Crit of Green 2017
Baraneck et al (2015) ART
Adaptive responsiveness teaching - 32 month FU
16 toddlers tracked use of community early intervention service improvements in receptive lang and socialisation
BUT no diff in asd outcomes
Green et al (2015) iBASIS-VIPP
< 1 year
infant attention to parents video feedback to help parents adapt to those infants individuals communication. Style
Aim to promote social and communication and development
54 baby sobs
Wide confidence intervals small -ve to strong +ve
Green et al (2017) 2year follow up fo 2015 using ADOS found that those in the intervention
reduced ADOS scored
improvements in devleopment of soc and com and expressive nad receptive language at age of 3
HOWEVER underpowered to detect catagorical diagnosis of autism modest sample size
LT EFFICACY IN REDUCING ASD (3)
what was good outcomes predicted by K (2012)
JASPER Kasari et al (2012) 5 year follow up good outcome for spoken language postiive outcomes predicted by earlier age entry into the study initiating joint attention play level
Estes et al (2015) ESDM
2 years follow up postintervention
imporved core autsim symptoms and adaptive behaviour at 6
PIckles et al (2016)
FU PACT - Parent chidl intervention
good retetion
changes in ASD severitv score (blinded assesors)
First study to convincingly socre LT outcomes
Pickles et al (2016)
FU PACT - Parent chidl intervention
good retetion
changes in ASD severitv score (blinded assesors)
First study to convincingly socre LT outcomes
