Defining and Determining Factors Influencing Professional Decision Making in Eclectic Early Intervention Models

Background:  There is a call in the field for more rigorous research aimed at defining eclectic intervention models for young children with ASD to provide a better understanding of the practices that contribute to eclectic models. 

Objectives:  The purpose of this study was to (1) examine the evidence based practices endorsed by teachers in an eclectic model (2) determine what, if any, relationship existed between teacher attitudes towards evidenced based practices (EBPs) and practice endorsement (3) explore demographic variables such as education level, total years teaching children with ASD, that predict a teacher’s use of EBPs within an eclectic model.

Methods:  28 teachers across 3 states completed the Classroom Practices Indicator (CPI) and the Evidence Based Practices Attitude Scale (EBPAS) as part of a larger study.  These 28 classrooms were identified by their districts as using eclectic practices, rather than subscribing to one particular model. All classrooms met inclusion criteria for high quality and were screened into the study by research staff trained on a quality indicators measure.  Demographic data was collected on total years of teaching children with ASD, level of educational attainment, gender, race and ethnicity.

 The CPI is a psychometrically robust instrument which measures a teacher’s endorsement of educational practices and the extent of their use within the classroom.  The EBPAS measures teacher attitudes towards the adoption of EBPs in their classrooms.  There are 4 attitudinal subscales, Appeal, Requirements, Openness, and Divergence.

Regression analyses were conducted to determine which demographic variables predicted teachers’ use of EBPs and to determine which attitudinal variables on the EBPAS predicted endorsement of EBPs in eclectic models.

Results:  Descriptive Statistics:   The majority of teachers endorsed the following EBPs: Pivotal Response, Structured Teaching, Incidental Teaching, Visual Supports, Social Stories, Social Skills Training, PECS, and Positive Behavior Supports.  Regression models indicated that level of education and years teaching were not significant predictors of teachers’ selection of classroom practices. An endorsement of LEAP was positively correlated with years teaching (LEAP, .172, p <.05).   Video Modeling was negatively correlated with years teaching (Video Modeling, -.05810, p <.05). 

There was a negative correlation between teachers who reported more pressure from school administration to utilize EBPs and the endorsement of Social Skills Training (Requirement -.9746, p<.05).  There was a positive correlation between teachers’ openness to EBPs and endorsement of Positive Behavior Supports (Openness, 1.0048, p< .05).  Scores on the divergence subscale were positively correlated to teacher endorsement of Voice Output Communication Aids (Divergence, 1.2286, p < .05).  

Conclusions:  This study identified EBPs endorsed by teachers in eclectic models.  Level of education and years teaching were not significant predictors of teachers’ selection of classroom practices.  Rather, attitudinal variables such as Openness towards use of EBPs and Divergence from current practices predicted the use of specific EBPs (Positive Behavior Supports and Voice Output Communication Aids).  The analysis of factors influencing adoption of EBPs is an essential step towards more clearly articulating what constitutes an eclectic model and reliably measuring the factors which predict the endorsement of evidence based practices.