Ecobehavioral Assessment of Social Behaviors of Young Children with Autism across Treatment Models

Background: Children with autism participate in a variety of early childhood settings such as inclusive classrooms with typical peers, self-contained classrooms for children with autism only, and classrooms serving children with non-specific developmental disabilities. However, the comprehensive treatment models associated with these varying classroom compositions for children with autism have a limited evidence base of support. An important starting place in establishing an evidence base would be to understand how different treatment models and their associated perspectives on classroom composition affect the core deficit area of social interaction. The National Research Council (2001) identified a need for comparative studies on the social outcomes of young children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) served in different comprehensive treatment programs. Ecobehavioral assessment, which involves direct observation of classroom ecology and teacher-child behavior, was used to evaluate the social behaviors of young children with ASD across three treatment models. Objectives: (1) To examine the social behaviors of young children with ASD across three comprehensive intervention models that use different classroom compositions. (2) To describe the class ecology (i.e. structural features) for students served in these TEACCH (ASD only), LEAP (inclusive), and control classrooms (children with a range of disabilities) (termed Business as Usual or BAU). Methods: Participants included 67 preschool age children with ASD located in 3 states. Thirty children were enrolled in 9 TEACCH classrooms, 19 children in 6 BAU classrooms, and 16 children in 9 LEAP classrooms. Research staff collected 30-minute observational samples for each student. An ecobehavioral coding system, the Code for Active Student Participation and Engagement (CASPER), was used to assess the structural features of the classroom and child behaviors. Momentary time sampling was used to code the following variables at 10-second intervals: group arrangement, class activity, activity initiator, child behavior, child social behavior, and adult behavior. Results: Data analysis is ongoing, however, preliminary results indicate that social behavior occurred in less than 6% of intervals across the three treatment models (5.4% TEACCH/AU only, 5.2% BAU/developmental delay, 4.4% LEAP/inclusive). In TEACCH and BAU classrooms, over 80% of social behavior was directed towards adults, while in LEAP classrooms, social behavior was directed equally to both adults and peers. Students in LEAP classrooms were most likely to be social in small groups with peers (88%) during socio-dramatic play activities. In TEACCH classrooms students with ASD primarily engaged socially during 1:1 activities with adults (59%), typically while working on sensory/pre-academic skills. In BAU classrooms, students were most likely to engage socially during 1:1 activities (46%) during manipulative play. ANOVAs will be reported to examine group differences. Conclusions: These early findings indicate that across intervention model and class composition, children with ASD rarely engaged in social behavior. However, the ecological variables that facilitated social engagement did differ across the model types. In addition, the recipients of the child's social behavior (peer or adult) also differed. Further analysis will assist in describing and differentiating the social behavior of children across model type and defining ecological variables that are related to social behavior.