Development of the Evaluative Method for Evaluating and Determining Evidence-Based Practices in Autism
- 3k Downloads
Although research in autism has grown more sophisticated, the gap between research knowledge and applicability of research in real world settings has grown. There have been a number of different reviews of evidence-based practices of treatments for young children with autism. Reviews which have critically evaluated the empirical evidence have not found any treatments that can be considered evidence-based. Reasons for this shortcoming are explored, and a new method for the evaluation of empirical evidence is provided. Future uses of this evaluative method are provided as well as a discussion of how this tool might aid in narrowing the research to practice gap.
KeywordsAutism Evidence-based practice
The authors would like to thank Erin Barton and Peter Doehring for their assistance in the development of the reliability of the rubrics. This manuscript was prepared while Brian Reichow was completing an internship at the Yale Child Study Center.
- Chorpita, B. F. (2003). The frontier of evidence-based practice. In A. E. Kazdin & J. R. Weisz (Eds.), Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents (pp. 42–59). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Cutspec, P. A. (2004). Origins of evidence-based approaches to best practice: Evidence-based medicine. Centerscope, 2(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
- Doehring, P., Reichow, B., & Volkmar, F. R. (2007, March). Is it evidenced-based? How to evaluate claims of effectiveness for autism. Paper presented at the International Association for Positive Behavior Support Conference, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
- Goodheart, C. D., Kazdin, A. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Evidence-based psychotherapy: Where practice and research meet. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Greenhalgh, T. (2001). How to read a paper: The basics of evidence based medicine (2nd ed.). London: BMJ Books.Google Scholar
- Gresham, F. M., Beebe-Frankenberger, M. E., MacMillan, D. L. (1999). A selective review of treatments for children with autism: Description and methodological considerations. The School Psychology Review, 28, 559–575.Google Scholar
- Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179.Google Scholar
- Kazdin, A. E., & Weisz, J. R. (Eds.). (2003). Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Lord, C., Bristol-Power, M., Cafiero, J. M., Filipek, P. A., Gallagher, J. J., Harris, S. L., et al. (2001). Educating children with autism. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Lucas, S. M., & Cutspec, P. A. (2005). The role and process of literature searching in the preparation of research synthesis. Centerscope, 4(3), 1–26.Google Scholar
- Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148.Google Scholar
- Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Reichow, B., Barton, E. E., Volkmar, F. R., & Cicchetti, D. V. (2007, May). The status of research on interventions for young children with autism spectrum disorders. Poster presented at the International Meeting for Autism Research, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
- Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Urbaniak, G. C., & Plous, S. (2006). Research randomizer (retrieved July 15, 2005 from http://www.randomizer.org).
- Weisz, J. R., & Hawley, K. M. (1998). Finding, evaluating, refining, and applying empirically supported treatments for children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 202–216.Google Scholar
- Weisz, J. R., Hawley, K. M., Pilkonis, P. A., Woody, S. R., & Follette, W. C. (2000). Stressing the (other) three rs in the search for empirically supported treatments: Review procedures, research quality, relevance to practice, and the public interest. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 7, 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar