Adult Outcomes in Autism: A Prospective Longitudinal Examination of the Effects of Early Intensive Intervention: A 20 Year Follo
Posted May 17 2012 8:37pm
It’s been over 25 years since Ivar Lovaas published a study on Applied Behavioral Analysis which would made ABA therapy (for good or bad, you can find vocal proponents of both opinions) the “gold standard” for young autistic children.
Now, some of the children who participated in the early studies and ABA programs are adults. Bryna Siegel , a professor at the Univerisity of California at San Francisco is presenting preliminary results on adult outcomes at IMFAR. I’ve been waiting for the abstract for some time since reading the title of the talk online. Unfortunately, the work is obviously very preliminary. One can hope that more will be presented at IMFAR and more will come.
B. Siegel1, T. Sendowski2, O. Park3, S. Radhakrishna3 and W. Phuchareon3, (1)University of California, San Francisco, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States, (2)Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, (3)Children’s Center at Langley Porter, Child and Adolescent Psychatiry, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
Title: Adult Outcomes in Autism: A Prospective Longitudinal Examination of the Effects of Early Intensive Intervention: A 20 Year Follow-Up
Background: In the past 15 years, estimates of autism prevalence have increased to as high as 1:110 presently (2008, CDC). Utilization of special education, speech and language therapies, social skills training and occupational therapy by individuals with autism has increased dramatically, yet little is known about long-term effectiveness of this costly resource allocation (GAO, 2005). It is known that 95% of California adults with autism are unemployed and not living independently (SMART, 2010). Young adults with autism who are now 21-26 years old are the first cohort to have received early intensive behavioral interventions (EIBI), now the legal standard for a ‘free and appropriate public education’ (IDEA, 2004). It is now critical to ascertain whether this cohort, the first to receive EIBI, is better prepared for adulthood as it makes this transition.
Objectives: This preliminary study will examine whether 1) pre-treatment diagnosis and cognitive characteristics, or 2) receipt of EIBI or not, accounts for the most variance in adult outcomes.
Methods: We used a prospective longitudinal methodology relying on archival data from the UCSF Autism Archive. The archive includes initial diagnostic and cognitive assessments gathered by primary clinicians when these, now adult, subjects were 0-5 years old, as well as data indicating whether EIBI or less intensive interventions were then being used. Ss were re-contacted as adults, along with their caregivers, and new diagnostic (DSM-IV, ADOS), adaptive behavior (VABS), and status variables (living situation, employment) were collected. Data on interim treatment intervention were collected based on caregiver report. Intensity of services were indexed by numbers of a) one-to-one treatment hours per week b) total treatment hours, and c) ratio of one-to-one hours/ total treatment hours. This is an important study as pre-treatment data and treatment status data were collected prospectively.
Results: To date, we have identified 49 Ss initially seen at 0-5 years of age, before initiation of any EIBI who remain in our catchment area. We so far, have re-contacted 8 families scheduled for the post-test assessment. Telephone interviewing suggests some of these Ss were 1) low functioning initially, received EIBI and remain low functioning, 2) that some were high functioning, did not receive EIBI and remain high functioning, and 3) that some were high functioning, received EIBI and remain high functioning.
Conclusions: We will present preliminary findings on a small sample of at least 20 Ss that represent these three groups and provide preliminary discussion of pre-test and treatment data that may explain outcomes.
Am I getting the right impression that (at least in this tiny group studied), EIBI was not found to improve daily functioning of autistics?
Is this because autistics can't improve their skills, or because EIBI tends to focus on "quiet hands" and similar normalization instead of improving useful communication and real-life skills?
I know of (personally and through their writing) more autistics than were interviewed for this study who definitely improved as a result of parents and teachers working with them in ways that may not qualify as EIBI.
Aha it is that time of year again is it.
I call this the "IMFAR effect"
Oh well I can't see my ever getting a paper accepted at IMFAR, I did not even bother this year. I'm content to do the disability studies circuit, I have an interesting one coming up in September, "The social construction of the Savant" it won't be what some people want to hear, and if I am lucky I will be doing a political later on.
Autism Blog – Adult Outcomes in Autism: A Prospective Longitudinal … | My Autism Site | All About Autism:
[...] Go here to see the original: Autism Blog – Adult Outcomes in Autism: A Prospective Longitudinal … [...]
@LBRB It’s been over 25 years since Ivar Lovaas published a study on Applied Behavioral Analysis which would made ABA therapy (for good or bad, you can find vocal proponents of both opinions) the “gold standard” for young autistic children...
25 years would be 1987...my daughter and some of her peers received lovaas' ABA at UCLA around 1968-80...anecdotal evidence does not indicate ABA was a gold standard...except in the opine of the ABA promotional scientists...
any studies to indicate long term result of ABA (1968-80) on classic kanner autism...specifically the non verbals...