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.
See more of: Treatments: A: Social Skills; School, Teachers
See more of: Prevalence, Risk factors & Intervention