Study protocol: implementation of a computer-assisted intervention for autism in schools: a hybrid type II cluster randomized effectiveness-implementation trial

Melanie Pellecchia, Rinad S Beidas, Steven C Marcus, Jessica Fishman, John R Kimberly, Carolyn C Cannuscio, Erica M Reisinger, Keiran Rump, David S Mandell, Melanie Pellecchia, Rinad S Beidas, Steven C Marcus, Jessica Fishman, John R Kimberly, Carolyn C Cannuscio, Erica M Reisinger, Keiran Rump, David S Mandell

Abstract

Background: The number of children diagnosed with autism has rapidly outpaced the capacities of many public school systems to serve them, especially under-resourced, urban school districts. The intensive nature of evidence-based autism interventions, which rely heavily on one-to-one delivery, has caused schools to turn to computer-assisted interventions (CAI). There is little evidence regarding the feasibility, effectiveness, and implementation of CAI in public schools. While CAI has the potential to increase instructional time for students with autism, it may also result in unintended consequences such as reduction in the amount of interpersonal (as opposed to computerized) instruction students receive. The purpose of this study is to test the effectiveness of one such CAI-TeachTown-its implementation, and its effects on teachers' use of other evidence-based practices.

Methods: This study protocol describes a type II hybrid cluster randomized effectiveness-implementation trial. We will train and coach 70 teachers in autism support classrooms in one large school district in the use of evidence-based practices for students with autism. Half of the teachers then will be randomly selected to receive training and access to TeachTown: Basics, a CAI for students with autism, for the students in their classrooms. The study examines: (1) the effectiveness of TeachTown for students with autism; (2) the extent to which teachers implement TeachTown the way it was designed (i.e., fidelity); and (3) whether its uptake increases or reduces the use of other evidence-based practices.

Discussion: This study will examine the implementation of new technology for children with ASD in public schools and will be the first to measure the effectiveness of CAI. As importantly, the study will investigate whether adding a new technology on top of existing practices increases or decreases their use. This study presents a unique method to studying both the implementation and exnovation of evidence-based practices for children with autism in school settings.

Trial registration: NCT02695693 . Retrospectively registered on July 8, 2016.

Keywords: Computer-assisted intervention; De-implementation; Effectiveness-implementation trial; Exnovation.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Conceptual model

References

    1. American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edition: DSM-5. Arlington: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
    1. US Office of Special Education Programs. . 2010. Accessed 1 Apr 2011.
    1. National Autism Center. The National Standards Report. 2009. Retrieved January 16, 2016 from .
    1. Lord C, McGee J. Educating children with autism. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
    1. Government Accountability Office . Special Education: Children with Autism. Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office; 2005.
    1. Jacobson J, Mulick J. System and cost research issues in treatments for people with autistic disorders. J Autism Dev Disord. 2000;30(6):585–593. doi: 10.1023/A:1005691411255.
    1. Lord C, Wagner A, Rogers S, et al. Challenges in evaluating psychosocial interventions for autistic spectrum disorders. J Autism Dev Disord. 2005;35(6):695–708. doi: 10.1007/s10803-005-0017-6.
    1. Mandell D, Palmer R. Differences among states in the identification of autistic spectrum disorders. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159(3):266–269. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.159.3.266.
    1. Stahmer A. The basic structure of community early intervention programs for children with autism: provider descriptions. J Autism Dev Disord. 2006;epub ahead of print.
    1. Lord C, Rutter M, Goode S, et al. Autism diagnostic observation schedule: a standardized observation of communicative and social behavior. J Autism Dev Disord. 1989;19(2):185–212. doi: 10.1007/BF02211841.
    1. Ploog B. Educational computer games and their applications to developmental disabilities. In: Edvardsen F, Kulle H, editors. Educational games: Design, learning and applications. Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.; 2010. pp. 281–297.
    1. Ploog B, Scharf A, Nelson D, Brooks P. Use of computer-assisted technologies (CAT) to enhance social, communicative, and language development in children with autism spectrum disorders. J Autism Dev Disord. 2013;43(2):301–322. doi: 10.1007/s10803-012-1571-3.
    1. Khowaja K, Salim S. A systematic review of strategies and computer-based intervention (cbi) for reading comprehension of children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2013;7(9):1111–1121. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2013.05.009.
    1. Knight V, McKissick B, Saunders A. A review of technology-based interventions to teach academic skills to students with autism spectrum disorder. J Autism Dev Disord 2013;electronic publication ahead of print.
    1. Self T, Scudder RR, Weheba G, Crumrine D. A virutal approach to teaching safety skills to children with autism spectrum disorder. Topics in Language Disorders. 2007;27(3):242–253. doi: 10.1097/01.TLD.0000285358.33545.79.
    1. Ramdoss S, Lang R, Fragale C, et al. Use of computer-based interventions to promote daily living skills in individuals with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. 2002;24(2):197–215. doi: 10.1007/s10882-011-9259-8.
    1. Ramdoss S, Machalicek W, Rispoli M, Mulloy A, Lang R, O'Reilly M. Computer-based interventions to improve social and emotional skills in individuals with autism spectrum disorders: a systematic review. Dev Neurorehabil. 2012;15(2):119–135. doi: 10.3109/17518423.2011.651655.
    1. Wainer AL, Ingersoll BR. The use of innovative computer technology for teaching social communication to individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Res Autism Spect Dis. 2011;5(1):96–107. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2010.08.002.
    1. Hetzroni OE, Tannous J. Effects of a computer-based intervention program on the communicative functions of children with autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 2004;34(2):95–113. doi: 10.1023/B:.
    1. Pennington RC. Computer-assisted instruction for teaching academic skills to students with autism spectrum disorders: a review of literature. Focus Autism Dev Dis. 2010;25(4):239–248. doi: 10.1177/1088357610378291.
    1. Plienis AJ, Romanczyk RG. Analyses of performance, behavior, and predictors for severely disturbed-children—a comparison of adult vs computer instruction. Anal Interven Devel. 1985;5(4):345–356.
    1. Whalen C, Moss D, Ilan A, et al. Efficacy of TeachTown: Basics computer-assisted intervention for the intensive comprehensive autism program in Los Angeles unified school district. Autism. 2010;14(3):179–197. doi: 10.1177/1362361310363282.
    1. Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012;50(3):217–226. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812.
    1. Williams N, Glisson C. The role of organizational culture and climate in the dissemination and implementation of empirically supported treatments for youth. In: Beidas R, Kendall P, editors. Dissemination and implementation of evidence-based practices in child and adolescent mental health. New York; 2014.
    1. Williams NJ. Assessing mental health clinicians’ intentions to adopt evidence-based treatments: reliability and validity testing of the evidence-based treatment intentions scale. Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):60. doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0417-3.
    1. Lee J, Cerreto F, Lee J. Theory of planned behavior and teachers’ decisions regarding use of educational technology. Educ Technol Soc. 2010;13(1):152–164.
    1. Crawley F. Intentions of science teachers to use investigative teaching methods: a test of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1990;27:685–697. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660270708.
    1. Haney J, Czerniak C, Lumpe A. Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1996;33:971–993. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199611)33:9<971::AID-TEA2>;2-S.
    1. Burak L. Examination and prediction of elementary school teachers’ intentions to teach HIV/AIDS education. AIDS Educ Prev. 1994;6:310–321.
    1. Beets M, Flay B, Vuchinich S, Acock A, Li K, Allred C. School climate and teachers' beliefs and attitudes associated with implementation of the positive action program: a diffusion of innovations model. Prev Sci. 2008;9(4):264–275. doi: 10.1007/s11121-008-0100-2.
    1. Rimm-Kaufman S, Sawyer L. Primary grade teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, attitudes toward teaching, and discipline and teaching priorities in relation to the responsive classroom approach. Elementary School Journal. 2004;104(4):321–341. doi: 10.1086/499756.
    1. Weiner BJ, Belden CM, Bergmire DM, Johnston M. The meaning and measurement of implementation climate. Implement Sci. 2011;6:78. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-78.
    1. Kimberly JR, Evanisko MJ. Organizational innovation: the influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Acad Manage J. 1981;24(4):689–713. doi: 10.2307/256170.
    1. Stirman SW, Kimberly J, Cook N, Calloway A, Castro F, Charns M. The sustainability of new programs and innovations: a review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future research. Implement Sci 2012;7.
    1. Kimberly J. Managerial Innovation. In: Nystrom PC, Starbuck WH, editors. Handbook of Organizational Design. New York: Oxford University Press; 1981. pp. 84–104.
    1. Curran M, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne J, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012;50(3):217–226. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812.
    1. Smith T. Discrete trial training in the treatment of autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities. 2001;16:2. doi: 10.1177/108835760101600204.
    1. Rose RD, Lang AJ, Welch SS, et al. Training primary care staff to deliver a computer-assisted cognitive-behavioral therapy program for anxiety disorders. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2011;33(4):336–342. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2011.04.011.
    1. Beidas RS, Koerner K, Weingardt KR, Kendall PC. Training research: practical recommendations for maximum impact. Adm Policy Ment Hlth. 2011;38(4):223–237. doi: 10.1007/s10488-011-0338-z.
    1. Beidas RS, Kendall PC. Training therapists in evidence-based practice: a critical review of studies from a systems-contextual perspective. Clin Psychol-Sci Pr. 2010;17(1):1–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2850.2009.01187.x.
    1. Elliott CD. Differential ability scales. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation; 1990.
    1. Harrison P, Oakland T. Adaptive Behavior Assessment System–Second Edition. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation; 2003.
    1. Bracken B. Bracken Basic Concept Scale – Receptive Third Edition. San Antonio: Harcourt Assessment; 2006.
    1. Schaefer B, Shur K, Macri-Summers M, MacDonald S. Preschool children’s learning behaviors, concept attainment, social skills, and problem behaviors: validity evidence for preschool learning behaviors scale scores. J Psychoeduc Assess. 2004;22(15):15–32. doi: 10.1177/073428290402200102.
    1. Kern L, DuPaul G, Volpe R, et al. Multisetting assessment-based intervention for young children at risk for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: initial effects on academic and behavioral functioning. School Psychology Review. 2007;36(2):237–255.
    1. Rhyner PM, Bracken BA. Concurrent validity of the Bracken Basic Concept Scale with language and intelligence measures. J Commun Disord. 2003;21(6):479–489. doi: 10.1016/0021-9924(88)90018-4.
    1. Cohen IL. Criterion-related validity of the PDD behavior inventory. J Autism Dev Disord. 2003;33(1):47–53. doi: 10.1023/A:1022278420716.
    1. Chandler S, Charman T, Baird G, et al. Validation of the social communication questionnaire in a population cohort of children with autism spectrum disorders. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2007;46(10):1324–1332. doi: 10.1097/chi.0b013e31812f7d8d.
    1. Sashegyi A, Brown S, Farrell P. Application of generalized random effects regression models for cluster-correlated longitudinal data to a school-based smoking prevention trial. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;152:1192–1200. doi: 10.1093/aje/152.12.1192.
    1. Donner A, Klar N. Cluster Randomization Trials in Health Research. London: Arnold; 2000.
    1. Murray D, Hannan P, Wolfinger R, Baker W, Dwyer J. Analysis of data from group-randomized trials with repeat observations on the same groups. Stat Med. 1998;17:1581–1600. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980730)17:14<1581::AID-SIM864>;2-N.
    1. Stahmer AC, Reed S, Lee E, Reisinger EM, Connell JE, Mandell DS. Training teachers to use evidence-based practices for autism: examining procedural implementation fidelity. Psychol Sch. 2015;52(2):181–195. doi: 10.1002/pits.21815.
    1. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Hlth. 2011;38(2):65–76. doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.
    1. Sheeran P. Intention–behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review. In: Stroebe W, Hewstone M, editors. European Review of Social Psychology. Chichester: Wiley; 2002.
    1. Armitage CJ, Conner M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2001;40:471–499. doi: 10.1348/014466601164939.
    1. Godin G, Kok G. The theory of planned behavior: a review of its applications to health-related behaviors. Am J Health Promot. 1996;11(2):87–98. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-11.2.87.
    1. Hagger MS, Chatzisarantis NLD, Biddle SJH. A meta-analytic review of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior in physical activity: predictive validity and the contribution of additional variables. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2002;24(1):3–32. doi: 10.1123/jsep.24.1.3.
    1. Sheeran P, Orbell S. Do intentions predict condom use? Metaanalysis and examination of six moderator variables. British Journal of Social Psychology. 1998;37:231–250. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1998.tb01167.x.
    1. Albarracin D, Johnson BT, Fishbein M, Muellerleile PA. Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2001;127(1):142–161. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.142.
    1. Fishbein M, Cappella J, Hornik R, Sayeed S, Yzer M, Ahern K. The role of theory in developing effective antidrug public service announcements. In: Crano W, Burgoon M, editors. Mass media and drug prevention: classic and contemporary theories and research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum2002:89–117.
    1. Fishbein M, Yzer M. Using theory to design effective health behavior interventions. Commun Theory. 2003;13(2):164–183. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00287.x.
    1. Mandell DS, Stahmer AC, Shin S, Xie M, Reisinger E, Marcus SC. The role of treatment fidelity on outcomes during a randomized field trial of an autism intervention. Autism. 2013;17(3):281–295. doi: 10.1177/1362361312473666.
    1. Mandell DS, Shin S, Stahmer A, Xie M, Reisinger E, Marcus SC. Outcomes and moderators of outcome in a randomized trial of two classroom-based interventions for students with autism. Autism. 2013;17(3):281–295. doi: 10.1177/1362361312473666.
    1. Pellecchia M, Connell JE, Beidas RS, Xie M, Marcus SC, Mandell DS. Dismantling the active ingredients of an intervention for children with autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 2015;45(9):2917–2927. doi: 10.1007/s10803-015-2455-0.
    1. Pisacreta J, Tincani M, Connell JE, Axelrod S. Increasing teachers’ use of a 1:1 praise to behavior correction ratio to decrease student disruption in general education classrooms. Behavioral Interventions. 2011;26:243–339. doi: 10.1002/bin.341.
    1. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59–82. doi: 10.1177/1525822X05279903.
    1. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1985.
    1. Bradley EH, Curry LA, Devers KJ. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Serv Res. 2007;42(4):1758–1772. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00684.x.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. Measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310.
    1. Palinkas LA, Aarons GA, Horwitz S, Chamberlain P, Hurlburt M, Landsverk J. Mixed method designs in implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(1):44–53. doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0314-z.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2. Lawrenceville: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
    1. Dawson G, Osterling J. Early intervention in autism. In: Guralnick M, editor. The effectiveness of early intervention. Baltimore, MD: Brookes; 1997. pp. 307–326.
    1. Rogers S. Empirically supported comprehensive treatments for young children with autism. J Clin Child Psychol. 1998;27(2):168–179. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp2702_4.
    1. Rogers S. Interventions that facilitate socialization in children with autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 2000;30(5):399–409. doi: 10.1023/A:1005543321840.
    1. Borenstein J. Power and precision software. Biostat Corp.: Teaneck, NJ; 2000.
    1. Chambers D, Azrin S. Research and services partnerships: partnership: a fundamental component of dissemination and implementation research. Psychiatr Serv. 2013;64(6):509–511. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201300032.
    1. Prasad V, Ioannidis JPA. Evidence-based de-implementation for contradicted, unproven, and aspiring healthcare practices. Implement Sci. 2014;9:1-6. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-9-1.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit