The research by Eldevik, Hastings, Jahr and Hughes (20110), on the “Outcomes of Behavioral Intervention for children with Autism in Mainstream Preschool Settings” evaluated results for 31 children suffering from autism. Children in the mainstream pre-school setting and aged between 1-6 years were subjected to behavioral intervention. The researchers also employed a control experiment of twelve children who were under treatment as usual model. According to the authors, after two years children under behavioral intervention had larger IQ scores of 95% as compared to their counterparts. The degree of team outcomes was analogous to other studies, resulting in a more rigorous intervention, despite few hours of intervention. The study also found positive results of 19.4% in the data of individual child, which implied that the children gained changes at a favorable IQ level. However, this percentage according to the authors was lower than those in recent meta-analysis studies. Finally, the studies provided merits and demerits of Mainstream Delivery Model.
The study design is cohort study because it seems consistent with the study aim (The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, 2015). This is because a group of children with autism was observed for a while- two years before any conclusions could be made. The researchers observed what transpired to this cohort when exposed to the behavioral intervention. This data was then compared to control experiment that consisted of children receiving treatment as usual to evaluate the outcome (Eldevik, Hastings, Jahr & Hughes, 20110). However, the researchers failed to offer a rational for using this method nether did they state the nature of their study design.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The researchers utilized a purposive sampling technique to select the study population. The criteria for selection specifically targeted children between 2-6 years and who suffered from autism. This method is suitable for selecting the sample population when using a cohort study design. This is because the basic goal was to establish and understand the usefulness of Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention (EIBI) on kids with autism (Eldevik, Hastings, Jahr & Hughes, 20110). The study sample size of 43 participants seems appropriate for research given the research question, study purpose, and the identified methodology.
Moreover, the researchers provided enough inform information regarding procedures used to gather data. The selection of participants was spearheaded by pedagogical-psychological services (PPT) that had no training in diagnosing children. The observation took two years, which was an ample time to make the necessary observations to guarantee efficient findings and conclusions.
This study failed to indicate whether or not some participants dropped from the study. In most studies participants usually drop out of either control or intervention conditions due to various reasons for attrition. According to O'Connor, Bellamy and Spring (n.d.), a participant may drop out of intervention after realizing that the treatment is onerous or unpersuasive. Similarly, they may leave because of feeling guilty that they have failed the intervention by performing dismally. Therefore, those remaining in the control and intervention at the end of research would probably differ in various ways and systematically from the randomized sample. As such, this signifies unresolved and severe problem of bias in this study. O'Connor, Bellamy and Spring (n.d.) agree that although reasons cited for leaving the study may be similar across the groups, researchers have to make an assumption concerning the end results for participants who left the experiment. Hence, in case more members drop out of this study, then the study offers less information reliability about this group.
Lastly, the EIBI model is more likely to be an efficient model in dealing with autism as indicated by the findings. The results from the administration of EIBI model in children in mainstream pre-school environment led to higher positive outcomes than the Treatment as Usual special nursery education module for children having autism. More so, the results of the recent studies from meta-analyses were similar to those of effect and size. In addition to this about 20 percent of individual children belong to EIBI cohort gained meaningful and substantial improvement in their IQ (Eldevik, Hastings, Jahr & Hughes, 20110). This information shows that EIBI-based models, when delivered within the community settings, may be useful for policy makers.
References
Eldevik, S., Hastings, R. P., Jahr E. and Hughes, J. C. (20110). Outcomes of Behavoral Intervention for children with Autism in Mainstream Pre-school Settings. J Autism Dev Disord . Vol. 42, 210-220.
O'Connor, E. Bellamy, J. & Spring B. (n.d.). Critical Appraisal . Retrieved from http://www.ebbp.org/course_outlines/criticalappraisal.pdf
The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2015). Nursing Resources: Types of Studies. Retrieved from http://researchguides.ebling.library.wisc.edu/c.php?g=293229&p=1953448
