| Title |
Comparative Efficacy of LEAP, TEACCH and Non-Model-Specific Special Education Programs for Preschoolers with Autism Spectrum Disorders
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10803-013-1877-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brian A. Boyd, Kara Hume, Matthew T. McBee, Michael Alessandri, Anibal Gutierrez, LeAnne Johnson, Laurie Sperry, Samuel L. Odom |
| Abstract |
LEAP and TEACCH represent two comprehensive treatment models (CTMs) that have been widely used across several decades to educate young children with autism spectrum disorders. The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to compare high fidelity LEAP (n = 22) and TEACCH (n = 25) classrooms to each other and a control condition (n = 28), in which teachers in high quality special education programs used non-model-specific practices. A total of 198 children were included in data analysis. Across conditions, children's performances improved over time. This study raises issues of the replication of effects for CTMs, and whether having access to a high quality special education program is as beneficial as access to a specific CTM. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 14% |
| France | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 308 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 1% |
| Spain | 3 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 297 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 59 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 41 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 41 | 13% |
| Researcher | 36 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 24 | 8% |
| Other | 49 | 16% |
| Unknown | 58 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 99 | 32% |
| Social Sciences | 56 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 10 | 3% |
| Other | 35 | 11% |
| Unknown | 65 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 80. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 July 2022.
All research outputs
#540,173
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
#152
of 5,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,881
of 208,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
#2
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 208,370 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.