Therapies for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders

Table 10. Outcomes of early intensive behavioral and developmental interventions (continued)
Author, year, country Age, mean (months) ±SD
Key outcomes
Groups, N enrollment/N
final
Study quality
IQ, mean ± SD
UCLA/Lovaas-based approaches
Reed et al. 103
G1: 42.9 (14.8)
• Children in the high intensity group had higher
2007, UK
G1a: 47.5 (13.5)
ability and cognitive scores and lower autism
G1b: 38.0 (9.9)
severity scores at baseline.
G1: High intensity
intervention, 14/14
G1a: High intensity with
G1c: 44.2 (20.5)
G2: 40.8 (5.6)
• G1: statistically significant improvements in
intellectual and educational functioning from
baseline.
focus on Lovaas
techniques, 4/4
G1b: High intensity with
focus on verbal behavior,
5/5
G1c: High intensity with
focus on CABAS methods,
5/5
G2: Low intensity
intervention in home-based
direct teaching sessions,
13/13
NR
• G2: statistically significant changes in educational
functioning.
• Group comparisons showed educational
functioning improvements for G1 compared with
G2.
• No group differences were found in autism
severity, cognitive functioning, or adaptive
behavior functioning.
Quality: Fair
Zachor et al. 125 2007, Israel
G1: UCLA/Lovaas-based
intervention, 53/53
G2: Eclectic approach,
15/15
Quality: Fair
Cohen et al. 105
2006, US
G1: UCLA/Lovaas-based
intervention, 21/21
G2: Local services, 21/21
Quality: Fair
Howard et al. 129
2005, US
G1: UCLA/Lovaas-based
intervention, 37/29
G2: Intensive eclectic
therapy
G3: Non-intensive eclectic
therapy
G2+G3: 41/32
Quality: Fair
G1: 25.1 ± 3.8
G2: 26.3 ± 4.6
NR
G1: 30.2 ± 5.8
G2: 33.2 ± 3.7
G1: 61.6 ± 16.4
G2: 59.4 ± 14.7
At intake:
G1: 30.86 ± 5.16
G2: 37.44 ± 5.68
G3: 34.56 ± 6.53
At followup:
G1: 45.66 ± 6.24
G2: 50.69 ± 5.64
G3: 49.25 ± 6.81
G1: 58.84 ± 18.15
G2: 53.69 ± 13.50
G3: 59.88 ± 14.85
36
• No baseline differences in terms of family
characteristics or child functioning.
• Significant time by intervention effects noted in
ADOS language/communication and reciprocal
social interaction domain scores--more substantial
decreases in the UCLA/Lovaas group.
• Following intervention both groups showed
improvements in cognitive and verbal scores and
adaptive behavior skills.
• Significantly higher IQs and adaptive behavior
skills post-treatment in G1.
• Receptive language improvements noted at 3
years, but expressive language skills and
socialization scores were not different for the two
groups.
• Twelve of 21 in the behavioral group had IQs >85
compared with 7 of 21 in the eclectic treatment
group.
• G1: significant improvements in all areas assessed
at followup, including average IQ of 89
(representing a 41 pt improvement over baseline
and a 24 pt improvement over the combined mean
of the other intervention groups).