A teacher training program for children with Autism.

A review of: Probst, P., Leppert, T. (2008). Brief Report: Outcomes of a Teacher Training Program for Autism Spectrum Disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders DOI: 10.1007/s10803-008-0561-y

This is a brief report of a preliminary study conducted in Germany examining the effectiveness of a training program for teachers of children with ASDs. The study included 10 children (7 boys; mean age 10) receiving services from 10 teachers (8 females). Each teacher taught one child with ASDs in a special education classroom for children with Mental Retardation (MR). Based on the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS), six of the 10 child participants had severe autism, three had moderate autism, and one had mild autism. The training of the teachers consisted of understanding a basic theoretical model for ASD and learning a series of evidence--based skills to address the needs of children with Autism.

It also taught practical methods and educational skills for everyday life in the classroom by focusing on ‘‘antecedent interventions’’ (Bregman et al. 2005) and comprised methods of ‘‘structured teaching’’ (Mesibov et al. 2006) as well as related techniques of ‘‘visual supports’’ (Prizant et al. 2006). The ‘‘structured teaching’’ method contains five main content areas: (1) spatial and (2) temporal structuring of the child’s social and school environment, (3) implementation of a work-learning system, (4) structured design of tasks, and (5) implementation of visual communication aids.

The training included 3 sessions provided to 2 groups of 5 teachers each. Teachers assessed the behavior of the children before the training and 9 month after the initial training session. Assessment instruments included the Classroom Child Behavioral Symptoms Questionnaire (CCBSQ) and the Classroom Teacher’s Stress Reactions Questionnaire (CTSRQ). The results showed a significant reduction of behavior problems as measured by the CCBSQ and a significant reduction of teachers’ stress as measured by the CTSRQ after the 9 month period. This study provided some early, preliminary, evidence for the effectiveness of this teacher training program. However, when evaluating preliminary research reports such as this, readers should be aware of the standard limitations of this specific methodology. First, this study was conduced with volunteer participants who were all assigned to the experimental (teacher training) methodology. Thus, it is impossible to know whether the improvement was due to the teacher training program or simply to characteristics of the children participants. For example, it is possible that these children could have improved at the same rate in other classrooms with teachers who did not attend the training program. In addition, the outcome was determined by the same teachers who were not blind to the experiment. Thus, it is possible that their reports of improvement were affected by a subjective perceived (placebo-like) effectiveness that may or may not be reflective of actual behavioral changes.

Autism and Spontaneous Communication

Title: Communicative spontaneity of children with autism: A preliminary analysis
Source:Chiang, H. (2008). Communicative spontaneity of children with autism: A preliminary analysis. Autism, 12(1), 9-21. DOI: 10.1177/1362361307085264

The author of this preliminary study wanted to explore the factors that are associated with communicative spontaneity in children with autism. Communicative spontaneity usually refers to “uncued communication”, or communication that is child-initiated and not elicited by direct prompts (questions, requests, etc). The author commented that although current treatments interventions have been effective in teaching communication skills in some non-verbal children, teaching spontaneity has been much more difficult. The participants included 32 children and pre-adolescents with a previous autism diagnosis (unclear how this was determined) but the diagnosis was confirmed via the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (Mean 38.9 with a range of 30-48.5). The children were observed in various naturalistic settings at school, including class time, lunch time, free play, circle time, etc. The video tapes of these kids were then analyzed to determine the type of communication interactions observed. The author divided communication spontaneity into 4 levels representing degrees of spontaneity as a function of the antecedents of the communication. Level 1 represented the most spontaneous communication, that is communication that was merely preceded by natural cues, such as the simple presence of an object or person. Level 4 represented the least spontaneous communication, such as communication preceded by a direct prompt (instruction, physical prompt, etc). The authors found that “surprisingly” most acts of communication coded were at the highest level of spontaneity (unprompted). This may reflect the frequency of antecedents available. For example, a child may have many more opportunities to make spontaneous comments about an object (high level of spontaneity) than in response to a teacher instruction (low level of spontaneity). But the results clearly show some level of spontaneous communication in this sample of children. The authors also found that most spontaneous communicative actions were in the “rejecting” or “requesting” domains as opposed to other domains such as greeting, farewell, or comments. From a behavioral perspective, the rejecting and requesting communicative actions have a more clear reward contingency (immediate result), which may help increase the rate of these behaviors. On the other hand, the contingency for "greetings" and "farewell" actions seem less clear, and arguably more social, which may explain the low rates of these behaviors. This is an interesting (I know, albeit a bit predictable) finding that could inform the design of communication interventions in children with autism.

School Principals and Autism.

Title: Principals’ Attitudes Regarding Inclusion of Children with Autism in Pennsylvania Public Schools
Authors: Judy L. Horrocks, George White, & Laura Roberts
Source: Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, In press.

A very interesting study that will be published in the next issue of the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. The authors wanted to examine the attitudes of school principals in Pennsylvania regarding the mainstream inclusion of children with autism. The researchers surveyed 571 school principals. The principals were provided with descriptions of 5 children with different levels of social and academic strengths and deficits, and asked for placement recommendations for these children (the descriptions did not explicitly stated that the kids had autism). Based on the Principals' responses, the authors identified two domains used by principals to determine placements: Social Detachment and Academic Skills. Then the researchers examined what characteristics of the principals that predicted how they used the two domains to make placement decisions. Here is the most interesting result: Principals with 1) formal training in special education and 2) from elementary schools (as compared to middle and high school) were more likely to recommend higher placement for children with high level of Social Detachment (various deficits in social functioning). First, it is clear that formal training in special education of Principals have an effect in their placement decisions, possibly by helping them more accurately understand the capacities and limitations of these students (Although this assumes that the higher placement decision was the best decision for these kids). It is interesting also to see the School Level effect. Why are principals at the middle and high school level more hesitant to recommend mainstream inclusion? Is it an understanding of changing social pressures and the belief that these children will be “protected” by keeping them in a self contained classroom?

NOTE: Principals are not usually involved in placement decisions, so the purpose of this study was to examine "attitudes" towards placement. The assumption is that the decisions these Principals made to the sample descriptions may reflect their general beliefs about placement, which in turn could affect how decisions are made at the school level (by those truly in charge of making such decisions).