Mark Wolery

The Use of Single-Subject Research to Identify Evidence-Based Practice in Special Education:

Single-subject research plays an important role in the development of evidence-based practice in special education. The defining features of single-subject research are presented, the contributions of single-subject research for special education are reviewed, and a specific proposal is offered for using single-subject research to document evidence-based practice. This article allows readers to determine if a specific study is a credible example of single-subject research and if a specific practice or procedure has been validated as “evidence-based” via single-subject research.

Comprehensive Synthesis of Early Intensive Behavioral Interventions for Young Children with Autism Based on the UCLA Young Autism Project Model

A 3-part comprehensive synthesis of the early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) for young children with autism based on the University of California at Los Angeles Young Autism Project method (Lovaas in Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 3–9, 1987) is presented. The three components of the synthesis were: (a) descriptive analyses, (b) effect size analyses, and (c) a meta-analysis. The findings suggest EIBI is an effective treatment, on average, for children with autism. The conditions under which this finding applies and the limitations and cautions that must be taken when interpreting the results are discussed within the contextual findings of the moderator analyses conducted in the meta-analysis.

Measures in intervention research with young children who have autism.

In this paper, the outcome measures used in intervention research with young children with autism were analyzed. Two types of literature were reviewed: reports evaluating specific intervention practices and reports of complete intervention programs. A description of the types of measures used in each literature source and measurement practices reported were analyzed and described. In addition, the intervention program literature was reviewed to determine whether factors that may mediate outcomes were measured. Finally, the literature was reviewed to identify instances in which multiple risk and opportunity factors were analyzed to account for variations in outcomes.

Proportional Change Index: An Alternative for Comparing Child Change Data:

In the past, efficiency indices have been proposed as a means of expressing child progress from developmental data. In the present article, a variation of a previous index is proposed and examples are shown depicting the utility of the proposed variation. The proposed variation, the Proportional Change Index (PCI), is a numerical statement of the relationship between childrens rate of development during intervention with the rate of development at the time intervention began. It allows comparisons of program efficiency across children with varying severity levels of handicapping conditions, different chronological ages, and developmental abilities.

A Commentary Single-Case Design Technical Document of the What Works Clearinghouse

The What Works Clearinghouse document on single-case experimental designs is critiqued. Three criticisms are offered. First, between-group experimental concepts and terminology unfortunately seeped into the description of single-case experimental designs; examples and potential negative effects are identified. Second, the document contains a number of critical omissions; four of these are noted. Third, the document contains some “errors” or misconceptions; examples are provided. Despite these criticisms, the document is generally accurate and may become quite useful for individuals reviewing single-case studies when they conduct synthesis of research literature.

Effects of Weighted Vests on the Engagement of Children With Developmental Delays and Autism

The use of weighted vests for children with autism spectrum disorders and developmental disabilities is a common practice as part of sensory integration therapy programs. The purpose of the current investigation was to extend the research on the use of weighted vests for children with autism and developmental delays in a methodologically rigorous study. The study was conducted using an alternating treatment design.This allowed the comparison of three different conditions: weighted vest, vest with no weight (which served as a placebo), and no vest (which served as a baseline). The results showed no differentiation in engagement between conditions for any of the participants. Implications for practice and future research are provided.

Engagement with Toys in Two-Year-Old Children with Autism: Teacher Selection versus Child Choice

This article compared two conditions (teacher selection of toys and child choice of toys) on the amount of time children were engaged appropriately with toys. An alternating treatment design was used, and three 2-year-old boys with autism participated. In the teacher-selected condition, the teacher gave the child a toy; and in the child-choice condition, the teacher gave the child a choice between two toys. The toys were selected from a pool of toys based on each childs frequency of contact with the toys from measures taken before the study started. A 5-second momentary time sampling procedure was used during daily 10-min sessions to measure the childs engagement with toys, nonengagement, and problematic behaviors. The teachers behaviors (physical prompt, modeling, talking, silent observation, and other) also were measured. The data suggest the child-choice condition resulted in more engaged time for each participant and fewer problematic behaviors for two of the three boys. The results are discussed in terms of clinical applications and future research.

Classroom Instruction Background, Assumptions, and Challenges

In this article, the authors focus on issues of instruction in classrooms. Initially, a brief definitional and historic section is presented. This is followed by a discussion of four assumptions about the current state of affairs: (a) evidence-based practices should be identified and used, (b) children’s phase of performance should dictate practice selection, (c) naturalistic procedures should be used, and (d) play is a defensible curricular domain. Three challenges (instructional, experimental, and resources) are noted.

COMPARISON OF PROGRESSIVE PROMPT DELAY WITH AND WITHOUT INSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK

We examined the effectiveness and efficiency of 2 instructional arrangements using progressive prompt delay (PPD) with 3 young children with autism and 1 child with developmental delays. Specifically, we compared PPD with instructive feedback (IF) to PPD without IF in an adapted alternating treatment design. The results suggested that (a) children with autism and developmental delays can learn when PPD is used with IF, (b) IF can be an effective method of instruction for young children with autism and developmental delays, and (c) the combination of PPD and IF can increase the efficiency of instruction. Data collected 8 to 9 weeks after instruction ended showed that participants maintained mastery of 58% to 92% of the acquired behaviors. We discuss these results within the constraints and limitations of the data and recommend areas for future research.

Peer Modeling of Academic and Social Behaviors during Small-Group Direct Instruction:

The authors describe an intervention for 3 preschoolers with disabilities who had low peer-related social competence. The intervention taught academic skills tailored to the need of each target student in small groups (triads) with two typically developing peers, using a progressive time delay procedure. Prior to instruction and separate from the students with disabilities, typical peers learned to provide reinforcers for correct responses, and to say “thank you” when a group mate shared. The authors assessed the acquisition of sharing and thanking behaviors during instructional sessions by the preschoolers with disabilities and generalization of these social behaviors to contexts similar to classroom activities for all participants. Results were (a) all participants learned targeted academic behaviors; (b) all participants learned some academic behaviors taught to their peers; (c) participants without disabilities modeled sharing with high fidelity but modeled thanking with lower fidelity; (d) all participants with disabilities shared and less frequently said “thank you” during instructional sessions (although they were never prompted to do so); and (e) participants with and without disabilities shared in art and picnic activities and said “thank you” to a lesser extent, although they were not prompted to share or thank in these contexts.