After a highly intensive behavioral intervention, an experimental group of 19 children with autism in preschool and school HAD Achieved better results than a higher IQ similar control group of 19 children, 7 years of age ( Lovaas, 1987) . The current study is a follow-up examination of previous results on the subject at the age of 11.5 years. The results That have shown the experimental group maintained improvements Compared to the control group. The 9 subjects in the experimental group who Achieved the best results at age 7, very Thorough evaluations Indicating That Received 8 Of Them Were indistinguishable from other children on tests of intelligence and adaptive behavior. Therefore, the behavioral treatment can produce long-term improvements for many children with autism.

Report on Article

The authors open the article Citing the results of follow-up studies with more distant in time (Rutter, 1970), where only 1 in 64, in adulthood, presented no problem. Then recall as early as the 60s the only intervention That HAD Given positive results was based on Scientifically proven behavioral techniques ..

In this regard, the research Describes the Lovaas (1987) That showing, after an intensive treatment for 2 years, 9 of 19 subjects in the experimental group Were Placed in the regular classes of first grade and an average of HAD Gained 20 IQ points.

However, it remains to check the stability over time of positive results. Citing the examination Lovaas (1987), state (p 8) that: "in the group to function normally That May Be still some deficiencies can not be detected by teachers and parents, and can be isolated only in a psychological context Specifically structured as specialemnte children grow up. "

Current research is Divided into 2 parts. In the first comparison was made Between the current performance of the subjects in Both Groups and Those of the previous experiment, at the age of 7 years.

In the second part, subjects who HAD Obtained the best results in search of Lovaas (1987), and That Could Be Considered Symptoms free from autism, Were Compared with a group of individuals who do not Displayed Psychiatric Symptoms Matched Those of the first age group. Both groups underwent a battery of personality tests Typically Investigating Areas of the issues in autism.

Subjects
They Are The Same experiment in 1987, apart from the control group 2 (21 subjects), which effectively is absent here, Which, However, Had Already Demonstrated equivalent control group 1.

In summary, the two groups, the experimental and control groups composed of 19 Were subjects each. The assignment of subjects to one or another occurred on the basis of the availability of operators to Undertake intensive treatment. Subjects in the experimental group Received 40 hours a week in a behavioral treatment for 2 years, subjects in the control group Received The Same treatment, but for 10 hours per week, with the ability to take advantage of other treatments.

At the time of this research, children in the experimental group Had an average of 13 years. Those who in the previous studies in HAD Reached level of normal function, Had completed treatment at the age of 7 years. Subjects in the control group Had an average age of 10 years.

Procedures
The survey was designed to verify, on the one hand the position of the current school children (If They Were That is a class in normal or special) and the Other in the Other Areas where traces of the personality of autistic symptoms.

Were Administered standardized tests to verify the Characteristics of the 3 subjects: intelligence, social and adaptive behaviors, personality and psychological disorders. In this way Were Measured For Each individual cognitive, social and emotional.

The Tests Were Administered by clinical psychology students, supervised by a psychologist is not aware of the research. Also a group of examiners interviewed subjects who HAD no disorders or deviant behavior, age-matched to Those of the experimental group. Also the examiners to proposed to structured interview to parents, Whose Were Investigating the items Areas of difficulty Commonly found in people with autism.

Results
Only 1 of the 9 subjects in the experimental group in a regular class at Were 7 years passed in a special HAD. On the other hand, another, who was the first in a special class, Had now moved on to a normal. None of the subjects in the control group was instead in a normal class.

As for IQ, 11 subjects (58%) of the experimental group Obtained scores in the norm, Compared to 3 (17%) of the control group, similar to what was found at age 7.

The test "Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales" (semi-structured interviews with parents, which effectively Provide an index of adaptation Consists of 3 subscales: Communication, Daily Living, Socialization) the composite score for the experimental group was 72 (normal score is 100) Compared to 48 in the control group. The difference proved statistically significant: in the control group Were more frequent problem behaviors.

Comparison Between the group of children with the best results and the children without behavior disorders

Between the two groups statistically significant Differences Were not, except for a tendency to divert the Greater personality of the first group, for more heavily influenced by extreme scores of a single subject.

Discussion
In this section, Lovaas et al. summarize the Conclusions Reached with That Was The Present Study and Establish some points of discussion.
First, Remember That The Most Relevant data is maintained by subjects in the experimental group in Their Level of Intellectual Functioning by 7 years (previous research) up to 13 years (current research). They reiterated the experimental group That Had an average IQ 30 points higher than the control group.
In Addition, subjects in the experimental group higher HAD scores Obtained in testing the adaptive behavior and personality.

The authors point out how Also the 9 subjects in the experimental group who Were functionally normal results shown in previous research HAD an intelligence test and an adaptation to normal. Then point out That in some clinical and personality scales scores with slight deviations from the average of the general population to extreme scores Were two of a single subject, I know he That Could not Be Longer considered "functionally normal".
Despi this, the other 8 Patients HAD normal intelligence but not only Demonstrated, but Also The Absence of signals That attest to the emotional or behavioral disorders of Existence.

Lovaas et al. then explain how it is Crucial to test the validity of the methodology used, Particularly Because The results of current research are based on previous studies Those of the. To investigate this aspect, the authors have set to Few points.

1. The two groups (the experimental and control groups) Were Initially Evaluated as comparable with the examination battery of tests, proved to be very similar with RESPECT to different variables. Supports this hypothesis the Differences Between Them That the post-tests are detected by attributable to treatment (That differed only variable).
2. The numerical composition of the groups remained Essentially Unchanged (only 2 subjects left the experiment, and Were not Replaced).
3. Those were really good chance with autism, beginning of the study: in fact, the diagnosis was made without regard to at least two trials, with a high degree of Agreement Between them.
4. Both Were at the beginning of groups research, comparable to others with autism, Assessed by other studies. The proof is in the control group 2 used in the research of 1987, Whose diagnosis was made by a team That HAD nothing to do with the research of Lovaas, but using similar standardized measurement tools. The Authors Respond well to criticism of Shopoler (Shopler, Short, Mesibow, 1989), That the IQ of the sample Examined by Lovaas HAD Already starting higher than average IQ autistic subjects. Also Remember That Examined the sample by the examination Shopler HAD similar IQ to them.
5. The efficacy of treatment was the fact That Further Confirmed by the control group 1 (by the Team That Received a treatment similar to That of the experimental group, but for less hours per week) and control group 2 (Which Received No treatment by the team ) at the end of the first study did not Differ Among Themselves, Thus Demonstrating That Was Only Able to intensive treatment produces positive effects.
6. Were the results not influenced by the socioeconomic status of families in groups ranging from Both High to Low.
7. The individual techniques where treatment is composed by Several Researchers Have Been Studied over 30 years.
8. The results of this research, Obtained Several years after cessation of treatment, support the hypothesis That Acquired improvements persist over time.
9. Measuring instruments used in order to avoid Were Varied relying solely on IQ tests, if used in isolation, have several limitations.
10. The efficacy of treatment was made with the creation of a measurable objective procedures, attention to detail, Able to Provide quantifiable through the use of the Measures Such devices metododologici follow-up, comparison group consisting of normal subjects, standardized tests (= calibrated on a significant sample of the population), and blinded assessments. The subjects who Showed the greatest improvements Were Particularly designed in a Rigorous.

All These factors, taken together, help to exclude the influence of different variables on the results from the treatment.

The authors point out, However, Despi the accuracy of the drawing, the validity of the results is not 100% satisfied.

Such as remember the assignment of subjects to two groups did not Occur at random "classic" (for example the first entity to a group, According To another and so on), but on the criterion of availability of personnel for intensive treatment.

However the notes That They Seem to rule out pre-test Measures Any unevenness of the two groups on this aspect.

Besides the two groups Could not be homogeneous in some variable to the existing treatment, not taken into account by the research and to some extents That It determines the results obtained.

In Addition to this problem, Lovaas et al. another fix related to the previous study, based on Which It Is.

1. Subjects in the experimental group had a mean age Slightly Higher Than Those in the control group, althoug this Appears not to have affected the final results.
2. The measurements for 17 with lower intellectual Functioning Of Those Were taken by members of the team of research and this May have Had an influence on the results, althoug the audit, this has not emerged.
3. The Clinical Rating Scale, based on respondents Which Were subjects classified as "functionally normal" is not a standardized test. The authors point out, However, That this is an extra tests than Those Who Actually Determined then the results, to ascertain the possible presence of residues of autistic disorders. They stress, However, That in the future will use a specially built by Rutter scales.
4. At follow-up was not possible to Obtain data from all subjects in the previous study. It Appears, Moreover, the missing data Unlikely That Could Change The average results.
5. The deviation from the norm, Compared with some clinical and personality scales, the group of subjects who Achieved better results, it was all Attributed to the extreme scores of a single subject, Which Rarely Happens quite. Lovaas et al. (1993), However, Argue That the statistical methodology (Barlow & Hersen, 1984) Provides Such cases, where an extreme score can alter the actual pattern of the group, I know it May Be Best not to Consider it.

At this point, the Researchers point out how Their study has all the features Because it is replicated by other Researchers, but on condition that: are well Acquired The Principles of learning theory, there is a deep knowledge of the manual process used in this research , has-been made for at least 6 months Practical with one to one interaction with a person suffering from pervasive developmental disorder, there is The Possibility of delivering an intensive treatment with the rhythms Described in the article.

Another point the authors on Which Set The focus is instead on the Majority of Children Achieve Their study failed to function normally. In this case, assumes That Might Be sufficient to apply the treatment at an age even discussed earlier, but could be the case That Also for Them but we need a different intervention, not yet defined.

Lovaas et al (1993) Revise and then some assumptions made in the previous article (Lovaas, 1987), would Appear Unlikely That the hypothesis of an alteration to the neurological basis of autism, as Would not this depend on a recovery. Instead Would you like to deepen the studies on the effects on neurological structures from the early intervention of young children, since research has shown (Rutter & Shopler, 1987) but just as autism is Often Considered to Be Correlated with deficits of this type.

And 'in fact BEEN DETECTED (Sirevaad & Greenough, 1988) That in some laboratory animals change the environment in early life Also produces changes in the neurological structures and there is no reason to believe That Therefore this is true for humans Also. The authors still remember how it was detected in all children under 3 years of overproduction of neurons, dendrites, axons and synapses. They cite the cases of Huttenlocher (1984), That with proper stimulation from the environment is possible, thanks to this overproduction in children with autism compensated for neurological abnormalities very early action alone.

However, remember to use caution in generalizing These statements, Particularly as the nature of the underlying neurological disorder of autism has not yet clarified Been (Rutter & Shopler, 1987).

They hope, However, That research is moving in this direction Because Such a hypothesis help explain not only Would the results of this research, but Also The relationships Between brain and behavior in very young children.

Bibliography

(For Technical Reasons, the bibliography is not comprehensive, we apologize. We will be grateful to Those Who Can Provide en)

- Barlow DH, Hersen M. (1984)
Singles experimentaldesign homes: strategies of studying behavior change (2nd ed.)
New York, Pergamon Press

- Bettelheim, B. (1967) The Empty Fortress. New York, The Free Press

- MK Demeyer, Hingtgen JN, Jackson RK (1981) Childhood Autism-reviewed journals. A decade of research. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 7, 388-451

- Dunn, LM (1981)
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Circle River Ml: American Guidance Service.

- Freeman BJ, Ritvo ER, Needleman R. & Yokota A. (1985)
the stability of cognitive andlinguistic parameters in autism: a 5-year study.
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry Chilf, 24290-311

- Huttenlocher PR (1984)
Synapse elimination and plasticity in Developing Human cerbral cortex.
American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 488-496

- Kamin LJ (1974)
The science and politics of IQ. New York, Wiley

- Kanner L. (1971)
Follow-up study of 11 autistic children originally reported in 1943.
Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia, 1, 119-145

- A. Kazdin (1980)
Research design in clinical psychology. New York, Harper & Row

- PC Kendall & Norton Forg JD (1982)
Therapy outcome research methods. In Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology, 429-460. New York, Wiley

- Leiter RG (1959)
Part 1 of the manual for the 1948 revision of the Leiter International Performance Scale: reliability and validity of the Evidence of the Leiter tests.Psychology Service Center Journal, 11, 1-72

- Lord c: Shopler & E. (1989)
The role of age at assessment, developmental level and test the stability of intelligence scores in young autistic children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 19, 483-499

- Lotter V. (1978)
Follow-up studies. In M. Rutter and E. Shopler (eds) Autism in an reapraisal concepts of treatment. London, Plenum Press

- Lovaas OI (1987)
Treatment and Normal Educational and Intellectual Functioning in Young Autistic bheavioral Children. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology aln, 55, 3-9

- OI Lovaas, AB Ackerman, D. Alexander P. J. Firestone D. Perkins Young (1980)
Teaching developmentally disabled children: the book The Austin, TX: Pro and

- Lovaas OI Koegel RL, Simmons J. Q, Long JS (1973)

Some Generalization and Follow-up Measures on Autistic Children in behavioral therapy

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 131-166

Article taken from: http://www.gli-argonauti.org/bma/doc/ric/lov02.htm