Cited by 96Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchBehavioral and Psychological StudiesEarly Childhood Education and Development

Outcomes of children receiving Group-Early Start Denver Model in an inclusive versus autism-specific setting: A pilot randomized controlled trial

Vivanti, Giacomo, Dissanayake, Cheryl, Duncan, Ed, Feary, Jessica, Capes, Kristy, Upson, Shannon, Bent, Catherine A, Rogers, Sally J +9 more·2019·Autism

Abstract

A major topic of debate is whether children with autism spectrum disorder should be educated in inclusive or specialized settings. We examined the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of delivering the Group-Early Start Denver Model to children with autism spectrum disorder in inclusive versus specialized classrooms. We randomly assigned 44 preschoolers with autism spectrum disorder to receive the Group-Early Start Denver Model across one school calendar year in classrooms that included only children with autism spectrum disorder or mostly children who were typically developing. Blind-rated indicators of teaching quality showed similar results across settings, which were above the local benchmark. Children showed improvements across blinded proximal measures of spontaneous vocalization, social interaction, and imitation and across distal measures of verbal cognition, adaptive behavior, and autism symptoms irrespective of intervention setting. Mothers of participants experienced a reduction in stress irrespective of child intervention setting. Across both settings, age at intervention start was negatively associated with gains in verbal cognition. Delivery of Group-Early Start Denver Model in an inclusive setting appeared to be feasible, with no significant differences in teaching quality and child improvements when the program was implemented in inclusive versus specialized classrooms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1362361318801341

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Vivanti, G., Dissanayake, C., Duncan, E., Feary, J., Capes, K., Upson, S., Bent, C. A., Rogers, S. J., Hudry, K., Jones, C., Bajwa, H., Marshall, A., Maya, J., Pye, K., Reynolds, J., Rodset, D., & Toscano, G.
Affiliations
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • La Trobe University, Australia
  • University of California, USA
Corresponding author
Vivanti, Giacomo
Venue
Autism
Published
2018-10-08
Volume
23
Issue
5
Pages
1165-1175
ISSN
  • 1362-3613 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7005
OpenAlex
W2896620624
Cited by
96
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6
FWCI
5.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Autism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Australian Department of Social Services
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
Keywords
autism spectrum disorder, inclusive education, preschool children, intervention settings, teaching quality, maternal stress, verbal cognition, adaptive behavior, social interaction, imitation, intervention feasibility
MeSH terms
Autism Spectrum Disorder, Adaptation, Psychological, Child, Preschool, Cognition, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Infant, Mainstreaming, Education, Male, Pilot Projects, Early Intervention, Educational

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