Re: IBI v. Eclectic

[Guest guest]

I have never understood the difference between IBI and intensive

eclectic intervention. If both collect and respond to data, aren't

they both ABA? And if the real difference between the two groups is

data collection, of course IBI would have better outcomes. A better

study IMO would be to do traditional IBI v. eclectic with similar data

analysis protocols and see which one works better. Because I don't

think you are really testing education methods here, but rather, data

response methods. I don't know why they bothered. t Burk

On Mar 22, 2005, at 7:34 PM, wrote:

We compared the effects of three treatment approaches on preschool-age

children with autism spectrum disorders. Twenty-nine children received

intensive behavior analytic intervention (IBT; 1:1 adult:child ratio,

25–40 h per week). A comparison group (n = 16) received intensive

“eclectic” intervention (a combination of methods, 1:1 or 1:2 ratio, 30

h per week) in public special education classrooms (designated the AP

group). A second comparison group (GP) comprised 16 children in

non-intensive public early intervention programs (a combination of

methods, small groups, 15 h per week). Independent examiners

administered standardized tests of cognitive, language, and adaptive

skills to children in all three groups at intake and about 14 months

after treatment began. The groups were similar on key variables at

intake. At follow-up, the IBT group had higher mean standard scores in

all skill domains than the AP and GP groups. The differences were

statistically significant for all domains

except motor skills. There were no statistically significant

differences between the mean scores of the AP and GP groups. Learning

rates at follow-up were also substantially higher for children in the

IBT group than for either of the other two groups. These findings are

consistent with other research showing that IBT is considerably more

efficacious than “eclectic” intervention.

[Guest guest]

At several folks suggestions, I am going to read the article in

question. But I'd like to clarify for the group to discuss some of my

concerns. First of all, the study results are being presented in a

broad generality (IBI is better than eclectic). That, I think is

dangerous. It doesn't answer the question of what mix of programs is

best for a child on an individual level. My children did much better

in an eclectic (not TEACCH) program than they did in traditional ABA

(lovaas). So I think it leaves one to wonder what kind of ABA was used

in the study. If it is VB, I am reassured. But it would be VERY scary

if some of those horrible non-VB programs take this research and run

with it to the detriment of those of us who prefer a NET bent. The

generality that is being presented in the study summary differs so

much from my own experience (we had a very eclectic mix) that I wonder

if it shouldn't be broken down into subgroups. E.g. were there some

kids that did better with the eclectic mix than all IBI? If so, what

were their characteristics?

Can you see why I am concerned? If I were a new parent, this study

would leave me scared that I was doing the wrong thing by mixing the

bag of tricks. Which is what we did to spectacular success, I might

add. I am worried about it being taken that way.

t Burk

www.autismteachingtools.com

Home of the " Early Learner at Home "

[Guest guest]

Ron,

The distinction is between

IBT=(ABA =ITT/DTT + NET + peer play) vs

eclectic (DTT + TEACCH + traditional preschool + SI/OT),

In the , et. al. paper. The 3 groups are IBT (25-30 hours at

age less than 3, 35-40 at the age of 3+, 1:1), AP(30 hours/week

eclectic 1:1 or 1:2), and AP (15 hours/week eclectic, small groups.

The exact makeup and protocol of the 3 groups are in the paper, as

well as the assessment measures and data analysis.

The reference is: " A comparison of intensive behavior analytic and

eclectic treatments for young children with autism " --Jane S. ,

Coleen R. Sparkman, G. Cohen, Green, Harold Stanislaw;

Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26 (2005) 359-383.

Abstract

We compared the effects of three treatment approaches on preschool-

age children with autism spectrum disorders. Twenty-nine children

received intensive behavior analytic intervention (IBT; 1:1

adult:child ratio, 25–40 h per week). A comparison group (n = 16)

received intensive ``eclectic'' intervention (a combination of

methods, 1:1 or 1:2 ratio, 30 h per week) in public special

education classrooms (designated the AP group). A second comparison

group (GP) comprised 16 children in non-intensive public early

intervention programs (a combination of methods, small groups, 15 h

per week). Independent examiners administered standardized tests of

cognitive, language, and adaptive skills to children in all three

groups at intake and about 14 months after treatment began. The

groups were similar on key variables at intake. At follow-up, the

IBT group had higher mean standard scores in all skill domains than

the AP and GP groups. The differences were statistically signi & #64257;cant

for all domains except motor skills. There were no statistically

signi & #64257;cant differences between the mean scores of the AP and GP

groups. Learning rates at follow-up were also substantially higher

for children in the IBT group than for either of the other two

groups. These & #64257;ndings are consistent with other research showing

that IBT is considerably more ef & #64257;cacious than ``eclectic''

intervention.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Hope that helps.

Regina F.

-- In , " Ron Kincaid " <rekincaid@h...> wrote:

>

> Would someone repost the article in question, or at least where I

can find

> it? I think that if we're differentiating ABA and VB, then

there's some

> significant definitional problems going on. Both use ABA

principles to

> teach skills to children. There is, I think, much more similiar

than

> different. I would expect " eclectic " to refer to a mix of speech

therapy,

> OT, as well as many other " therapies " of questionable value - like

TEACCH.

>

> Ron Kincaid

>

>