Cited by 602Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchBehavioral and Psychological StudiesChild Nutrition and Feeding Issues

A comparison of intensive behavior analytic and eclectic treatments for young children with autism

Howard, Jane S., Sparkman, Coleen R., Cohen, Howard G., Green, Gina, Stanislaw, Harold·2005·Research in Developmental Disabilities

Abstract

We compared the effects of three treatment approaches on preschool-age children with autism spectrum disorders. Twenty-nine children received intensive behavior analytic intervention (IBT; 1:1 adult:child ratio, 25-40 h per week). A comparison group (n=16) received intensive "eclectic" intervention (a combination of methods, 1:1 or 1:2 ratio, 30 h per week) in public special education classrooms (designated the AP group). A second comparison group (GP) comprised 16 children in non-intensive public early intervention programs (a combination of methods, small groups, 15 h per week). Independent examiners administered standardized tests of cognitive, language, and adaptive skills to children in all three groups at intake and about 14 months after treatment began. The groups were similar on key variables at intake. At follow-up, the IBT group had higher mean standard scores in all skill domains than the AP and GP groups. The differences were statistically significant for all domains except motor skills. There were no statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the AP and GP groups. Learning rates at follow-up were also substantially higher for children in the IBT group than for either of the other two groups. These findings are consistent with other research showing that IBT is considerably more efficacious than "eclectic" intervention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ridd.2004.09.005

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Howard, J. S., Sparkman, C. R., Cohen, H. G., Green, G., & Stanislaw, H.
Affiliations
  • California State University, Stanislaus (US)
  • University of North Texas (US)
Corresponding author
Howard, Jane S.
Venue
Research in Developmental Disabilities
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-07
Volume
26
Issue
4
Pages
359-383
ISSN
0891-4222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2141742777
Cited by
600
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 46 · 2013: 46 · 2012: 48
FWCI
13.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Research in Developmental Disabilities (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
Keywords
autism spectrum disorder, early intervention, preschool children, treatment efficacy, cognitive skills, language skills, adaptive skills, learning rate, special classes
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Autistic Disorder, Mental Disorders, Child, Preschool, Communication, Female, Humans, Language Therapy, Learning, Male, Severity of Illness Index, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review