Table 20.

2   (continued)
402

Author(s) and Year Sample Outcome measures Treatment procedures Findings Nathan and Gorman
(2002, 2007) criteria
Hanen’s More than Words
Carter et al. 2011 62 ss, aged 15–25 mos.; At 5 mos. post-enrollment: par- ss randomized to HMTW or No main effects of HMTW on Type 2 study:
51 male, 11 female ent–child free play procedure, “business as usual” control parental responsivity or chil- + RCT,
ESCS, Parent Interview for group; HMTW provided over dren’s communication; decent − Blind assessments,
Autism-Clinical Version; at 3.5 mos., consisting of eight effect sizes for improvements in + Incl/excl criteria,
9 mos. post-enrollment: par- group sxs w/ parents only parental responsivity; treatment + Standardized dx
ent–child free play procedure, and 3 in-home individualized effects on child communication battery,
ESCS, Parent Interview for parent–child sx; focus on: (a) gains to 9 mos. post-enrollment + Comparison group,
Autism-Clinical Version, improved 2-way interaction, b) that were moderated by enroll- + Tx fidelity,
MSEL; VABS Second Edi- more mature and conventional ment object interest − Tx manual
tion, ADOS, clinical DSM-IV ways of communicating, (c)
impression better skills in communicat-
ing for social purposes, and
(d) improved understanding of
lang.
McConachie et al. 51 ss with ASD, 26 MCDI; social communication 20 weeks of group instruction Children in the training group Type 1 study:
2005 parent–child dyads in skills from ADOS-G; parent 1 h/week using the More than had significantly larger vocabu- + RCT,
tx group and 25 parent– outcome measures on parent tx Words Program and three home lary size, but no sig. differences + Blind assessments,
child dyads in control fidelity, family resources, and visits in social communication algo- + Incl/excl criteria,
group stress rithm of the ADOS-G + Standardized dx
battery,
+ Comparison group,
+ Tx fidelity,
+ Tx manual
Prelock et al. 2011 4 ss, aged 37–69 mos. 3–4 mos. post-tx: CSBS DP Single-subject design; ori- For 3/4 children, improvements Type 3 study:
(both caregiver questionnaire entation session and 8 2.5 h on social and symbolic com- − RCT,
and examiner’s observations), sessions; clinic based; included municative acts and vocabulary, − Blind assessments,
MCDI: Words and Gestures or parents in didactic and interac- but not on MSEL; 4th child − Incl/excl criteria,
Words and Sentences, parent tive manner; parents taught was tested differently due to his + Standardized dx
responsiveness and parent sat- strategies to increase com- more advanced initial profile–he battery,
isfaction questionnaire, MSEL munication opportunities and showed notable improvement − Comparison group,
interaction w/ their children, on Mullen scores, but scored − Tx fidelity,
and parents developed own “to- in average range both pre- and + Tx manual
do-at-home” plans post-tx
A. L. Wagner et al.
Table 20.2   (continued)
Author(s) and Year Sample Outcome measures
Joint Attention Mediated Learning (JAML)
Schertz and Odom 3 ss, aged 20–28 mos. Coded video tapes of weekly
2007 diagnosed with early 10-min parent–child interaction
ASD as dx by the for four joint attention behav-
M-CHAT, PDD-ST-II, iors: (1) focusing on faces; (2)
& ISCQ turn taking; (3) responding to
joint attention; (4) initiating
joint attention; qualitative data
from weekly sx, parent inter-
views, and parent notes
Joint Attention and Symbolic Play Engagement Regulation (JASPER)
Kasari et al. 2006 56 ss, aged 3–4 yrs. with MSEL, ESCS, Structured Play
ASD as dx by the ADOS Assessment, Reynell Develop-
and ADI-R mental Language Scales, and 15
min. caregiver-child interaction
videotaped and coded for child’s
play behaviors, types of func-
tional and symbolic play acts,
and the joint attention skills of
the dyad
Treatment procedures
Parent training in families’
homes based on JAML manual
(4 phases of tx to increase 4
joint attention behaviors); fami-
lies received between 11 and 16
tx sx over 9–26 weeks
Direct therapist-child inter-
vention in the clinic focused
on either joint attention skills
(JA group) or symbolic play
skills (SP group); 30 min per
day for 5–6 weeks (on average
children in the joint attention
group received 28.6 sx and the
symbolic play group received
34.7 sx; not a significant differ-
ence in # of sx); children in all 3
groups were also enrolled in 30
h. of ABA-based hospital early
behavioral intervention
Findings Nathan and Gorman
(2002, 2007) criteria
Single-subject, multiple baseline Type 2 study:
design; changes in child per- −RCT,
formance were reflected as the +Blind assessments,
number of 10-s intervals during +Incl/excl criteria,
weekly 10-min videos in which +Standardized dx
the child engaged in four joint battery,
attention behaviors; in tx condi- −Comparison group,
tion, each of 3 toddlers surpassed +Tx fidelity,
baseline performance levels for +Tx manual
all 4 targeted outcomes; 2 of 3
toddlers demonstrated repeated
joint attention by end of tx
Children randomized to 1 of 3 Type 1 study:
groups: joint attention (JA), sym- +RCT,
bolic play (SP), or control group; +Blind assessments,
at time of post-tx children in the +Incl/excl criteria,
JA group initiated significantly +Standardized dx
more showing and responded battery,
more to joint attention in the +Comparison group,
ESCS and more joint attention +Tx fidelity,
in caregiver–child play; children +Tx manual
in the SP group showed higher
levels of play in the ESCS and
caregiver–child interaction and
more diverse types of play during
the caregiver-child interaction
than the other two groups
20  Developmental Approaches to Treatment of Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder
403
Table 20.2   (continued)
Author(s) and Year Sample Outcome measures
Kasari et al. 2008 56 ss, aged 3–4 yrs. withAssessments of joint attention
ASD as dx by the ADOS (JA) skills, symbolic play (SP)
& ADI-R in original skills, mother–child interac-
study; 56 ss at 6 mos. tions, and language develop-
post-tx and 53 ss at 12 ment at pre- and post-tx, and at
mos. post-tx 6 and 12 months post-tx on the
MSEL, the ESCS, the Reynell
Developmental Language
Scales, Structured Play Assess-
ment, and caregiver–child
interaction (see Kasari et al.
2006 above for details)
Kasari et al. 2010 38 child–parent dyads; MSEL; child-caregiver 15 min.
children were aged play interaction videotaped and
21–36 mos. with ASD coded for: (a) percentage of
as dx by an independent time in engagement states (col-
clinician; parents’ mean lapsed into unengaged/other;
age was 34.5 yrs.; no object engagement, and joint
significant differences engagement); (b) play types
found between parents in (functional, symbolic); and (c)
both groups frequencies of initiating and
responding to joint attention;
MSEL collected pre-tx and at
12-mo. follow up; parent–child
play interaction was conducted
at pre-tx; after 8 weeks of tx or
waitlist and at 12-mo. follow
up; caregivers also rated on
Caregiver Quality of Involve-
ment Scale and adherence to tx
protocol
Treatment procedures
See Kasari et al. 2006 above
Immediate treatment (IT) group
immediately received 8 weeks
of tx; 3 sx/week = 24 caregiver-
mediated tx sx total in a labora-
tory playroom setting; each
sx included direct instruction,
modeling, guided practice, and
feedback from the intervention-
ist; intervention focused on ten
modules for teaching children
joint attention and symbolic
play
404
Findings Nathan and Gorman
(2002, 2007) criteria
Follow-up to Kasari et al. 2006 Type 1 study:
study above; both JA and SP + RCT,
groups showed significantly + Blind assessments,
greater growth in expres- + Incl/excl criteria,
sive language over time when + Standardized dx
compared to the control group; battery,
children who begun tx at the + Comparison group,
lowest language levels showed + Tx fidelity,
significantly more improvement + Tx manual
in language development in the
JA group than the SP or control
groups
Child–parent dyads randomly Type 1 study:
assigned to immediate treatment + RCT,
(IT) group or wait-list (WL) + Blind assessments,
control group; the IT group made + Incl/excl criteria,
significant improvements in + Standardized dx
amount of time in joint engage- battery,
ment, responsiveness to joint + Comparison group,
attention, and in the diversity of + Tx fidelity,
play skills when compared to the + Tx manual
WL control group at the 8-week
point; Caregivers were rated high
on tx fidelity at the end of the 8
weeks of tx; tx-related gains in
joint engagement, joint attention
responding skills, & types of
functional skills were maintained
or improved for the IT group
after 12 mos.
A. L. Wagner et al.