Training Teachers in Evidence-Based Practice for Individuals With Autism Spectrum Disorder

Abstract

In this review, the authors include 23 studies where researchers experimentally evaluated training for teachers of students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Authors summarized qualitative information on study and participant characteristics. Next, variables related to teacher practice and student learning targets were categorized based on Odom, Collet-Klingenberg, Rogers, and Hatton’s list of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for individuals with ASD. Training components were also categorized based on instructional format (i.e., self-instruction, individual, group). Finally, application of standards (What Works Clearinghouse [WWC]) facilitated the evaluation of each study’s rigor. Findings suggest that research has most frequently focused on individually training teachers in the use of behavioral interventions to improve students’ communication. From the evaluation of design quality, only 2 of the 23 studies met WWC quality indicators for single-case or group-design standards. A discussion of the findings, limitations to the review, and recommendations for practitioners and future research on teacher training conclude the study results.

Keywords

Autism Spectrum Disorder evidence-based practice teacher training professional development

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is characterized by deficits in social communication accompanied by the presence of restricted and repetitive behaviors (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). In addition to the diagnostic characteristics, individuals with ASD often present with an intellectual disability, exhibiting deficits in adaptive and cognitive functioning (Matson & Shoemaker, 2009). Many individuals with ASD also display challenging behaviors, creating a unique set of needs and barriers to independent living (Webber & Scheuermann, 2008). Studies continue to document the grim outcomes and lack of available services for adults with ASD (Taylor & Seltzer, 2011). Fortunately, the use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) can make significant improvements in the lives of individuals with ASD and their families (Simpson, McKee, Teeter, & Beytien, 2007).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014) currently estimates that 1 in 68 individuals have an ASD. Based on phone interviews with parents, the National Center for Health Statistics recently reported that the prevalence rate of school-aged individuals (i.e., 6-17 years) diagnosed with ASD has significantly increased to 1 in 50 (Blumberg et al., 2013). This is supplemented by data available from the U.S. Department of Education, where there is a demonstrated rise from 3.29% in 2005 to 7.02% in 2011 of individuals served under the eligibility of ASD in schools.

The increase in prevalence of students with ASD in schools is accompanied by an increase in litigation specific to this population (Hill & Hill, 2012). Both the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) and No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) require that teachers use EBPs when educating individuals with disabilities. A burden of accountability is also placed on the school district to provide staff development on EBP to educators serving individuals with disabilities. Although these mandates are not specific to ASD, the number of court cases from 2005 to 2008 including students with ASD accounted for 39% of total cases in special education (Zirkel, 2011). Recommendations from authors reviewing ASD litigation continue to conclude that school districts should pay specific attention to students with ASD, ensuring they are educated by teachers using EBPs (Hill & Hill, 2012; Yell, Drasgow, & Lowery, 2005; Zirkel, 2011). The combined increase in prevalence and litigation intensifies the need for schools to adopt and train teachers in EBP for students with ASD.

The first place practitioners in the schools can look to for assistance in identifying EBP for students with ASD is in the print literature. Fortunately, multiple resources are available to educators and school stakeholders who discuss such EBPs. First, a number of textbooks and handbooks on empirical teaching strategies for individuals with ASD exists (e.g., Fovel, 2002; Koegel & Koegel, 2006; Leaf & McEachin, 1999; Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996; Webber & Scheuermann, 2008). Second, the corpus of literature is replete with systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses conducted on interventions with participants with ASD such as school-based treatment (e.g., Machalicek et al., 2008), reduction of problem behavior (e.g., Campbell, 2003), sensory integration therapy (e.g., Lang et al., 2012), video-based instruction (e.g., Ayres & Langone, 2005), social skills (e.g., White, Leonig, & Scahill, 2007), joint attention (e.g., Bruinsma, Koegel, & Koegel, 2004), and training paraprofessionals (e.g., Rispoli, Neely, Lang, & Ganz, 2011).

The research community has attempted to influence adoption of EBPs for students with ASD by using rigorous standards to select and publicize strategies that appear in peer-reviewed research. These reports are then summarized for practitioners to access. For example, Children’s Mental Health Ontario published a comprehensive handbook on EBPs in 2003 explaining the empirical support and procedures for interventions (Perry & Condillac, 2003). Likewise, the National Autism Center (2009) published an online guide specifically for use of EBPs in the schools for individuals with ASD. In 2007, the U.S. Department of Education funded the National Professional Development Center (NPDC) on Autism Spectrum Disorders. They have assembled online briefs that include information and materials to assist teachers with the implementation of 24 different empirically supported strategies (Odom, Collet-Klingenberg, Rogers, & Hatton, 2010). The selection of practices was the result of a systematic literature review on focused interventions for individuals with ASD. The 24 EBPs were then categorized by their effects on six participant target behaviors (i.e., Academic, Behavior, Communication, Play, Social, Transitions). Free online modules, including videos and other supplementary materials covering information on most of the 24 EBPs, were created and are available from the Ohio Center for Autism and Low Incidence (OCALI). The examples of texts, literature reviews, and summary reports listed here are only a fraction of the existing resources designed to inform autism practitioners on what is evidence-based. Despite an abundance of available resources, teachers do not readily use EBPs when educating individuals with ASD (Hess, Morrier, Heflin, & Ivey, 2008; National Research Council, 2001; Stahmer, Collings, & Palinkas, 2005).

A number of barriers may explain why scientifically validated interventions are infrequently used in classrooms. One prime example is a lack of training in university preparation (Morrier, Hess, & Heflin, 2011). While personnel preparation programs for ASD are on the rise (Barnhill, Polloway, & Sumutka, 2011), many programs do not train teachers to educate students with ASD to the level of specification needed (Scheuermann, Webber, Boutot, & Goodwin, 2003). Once teachers are employed, the availability of quality in-service training on EBPs in ASD is scarce (Lang et al., 2010). This may occur because many school districts do not have access to individuals available to conduct trainings who specialize in teaching students with ASD (Lerman, Vorndran, Addison, & Kuhn, 2004). As a result, this lack of training at the college and local level, often leaves teachers underprepared to effectively teach students with ASD (Machalicek et al., 2008; Suhrheinrich, 2011).

Even when training on EBP occurs, other obstacles related to quality of training may limit effective adoption. First, traditional professional development involving dissemination of information through lectures and handouts alone is often ineffective (Bethune & Wood, 2013). Researchers have documented the need for follow-up training (e.g., feedback) to increase adoption of new instructional strategies (Simonsen, Myers, & DeLuca, 2010) and to observe improved student outcomes (Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007). This is important for adoption of EBPs as well as higher levels of fidelity of implementation of learned strategies (Pelletier, McNamara, Braga-Kenyon, & Ahearn, 2010). Some educators may also display a reluctance to adopt new practices because it may not fit with strategies currently in use (Lang et al., 2010). Therefore, teachers may attempt to adapt EBPs to their setting while neglecting core components necessary for effectiveness of the intervention (Odom, 2008). Finally, teachers may have access to training on EBP, but may not have time to participate (Lerman, Tetreault, Hovanetz, Strobel, & Garro, 2008).

Given increasing prevalence, ethical and legal requirements of teachers using EBPs, and barriers to the adoption of EBPs, the present article reviewed and synthesized the literature on training received by teachers to educate individuals with ASD. To the authors’ knowledge, there is currently no paper summarizing this body of literature. Reviewing the literature may reveal strategies for improving EBPs’ adoption, direct policy-making toward better training, and point researchers in directions needing further exploration. Having identified EBPs is insufficient if training programs do not have the resources to help teachers learn to incorporate the practices. Therefore, this review examines the strategies taught through in-service trainings compared with those deemed evidence-based by Odom et al. (2010). In addition, the delivery format of the trainings and related outcomes on teacher behavior were summarized across studies.

Method

Search Procedures

An electronic search was conducted using PsycINFO and ERIC online databases with a combination of the following search terms: Autism or ASD or Autistic Disorder or Asperger’s Syndrome or Developmental Disabilities or Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Severe Disabilities and Teacher or Practitioner or Educator or Instructor or Staff and Training or In-service or Staff Development or Professional Development or Coaching or Continuing Education. In addition, a hand search was conducted in the journal Teacher Education and Special Education, and ancestral searches were conducted in all articles that met criteria for inclusion.

Selection Procedures

Articles were included in this review if they met the following criteria: (a) published in a peer-reviewed journal; (b) included participants employed at the time of the study as an in-service teacher; (c) manipulation of at least one independent variable, specifically some form of training; (d) measurement of at least one quantitative variable of teacher behavior was collected before and either during or after introduction of the training; and (e) participation by teachers serving school-aged (i.e., 3-21) individuals with ASD and/or participation by school-aged individuals with ASD in the study. No limitations were set on publication year (search conducted in Summer 2013), but articles were excluded if (a) unavailable in English or (b) included results of participants of other job descriptions (e.g., principals, educational assistants; McDougall et al., 2009) that could not be disaggregated from results of teacher participants. A total of 21 articles were identified through the electronic database and hand searches that met criteria. Two additional articles were located in the ancestral search, resulting in a total of 23 articles.

Results

Eleven different journals published the 23 articles meeting criteria, with the greatest number found in Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA; n = 4) and Teacher Education and Special Education (TESE; n = 4). Dates of publication ranged from 1977 to 2013, and 74% of studies were published in the last 12 years (i.e., since NCLB, 2001). Of the 23 articles included in this study, 74% used a single-case design (SCD) and 26% used a group design to evaluate the effects of training on teacher behavior. Table 1 includes information of study characteristics for each article.

Table 1.

Study and Design Information Across Studies.

Author(s)	Year	Design	Design quality	Outcome
Bethune and Wood	2013	MBLxP (non-concurrent)	Does not meet	Positive
Browder, Karvonen, Davis, Fallin, and Courtade-Littleet	2005	PreT-PostT-CG	Does not meet	NE
Browder et al.	2012	PreT-PostT-WG	Does not meet^a	NE^a
Browder, Trela, and Jimenez	2007	MPxP	Does not meet	Positive
Devlin	2005	PreT-PostT-CG	Does not meet	NE
Garland, Vasquez, and Pearl	2012	MPxP	Meets with reservations	NE
Goodman, Brady, Duffy, Scott, and Pollard	2008	MBLxP	Does not meet	Positive
Haring, Neetz, Lovinger, Peck, and Semmel	1987	MBLxP	Does not meet	NE
Ingham and Greer	1992	MBLxP	Does not meet	NE
Jimenez, Mims, and Browder	2012	PreT-PostT-WG	Does not meet	NE
Kamps, Walker, Maher, and Rotholz	1992	PreT-PostT-CG	Does not meet	NE
Keen, Sigafoos, and Woodyatt	2001	MPxB Replicated xP^b	Does not meet	NE
Koegel, Russo, and Rincover	1977	MBLxP (Modified multi-response)	Does not meet	Positive
Lerman, Tetreault, Hovanetz, Strobel, and Garro	2008	MBLxP replicated xB	Does not meet	Mixed
Lerman, Vorndran, Addison, and Kuhn	2004	MBxP replicated xB	Does not meet	Positive
Machalicek et al.	2010	MBLxP	Does not meet	Positive
Pelletier, McNamara, Braga-Kenyon, and Ahearn	2010	MBLxP (non-concurrent)	Does not meet	Positive
Ryan, Hemmes, Sturmey, Jacobs, and Grommet	2008	MBLxP	Does not meet	Positive
Sarokoff and Sturmey	2004	MBLxP	Meets	Positive
Schwartz, Anderson, and Halle	1989	MBLxB	Does not meet	Positive
Sigafoos, Kerr, Roberts, and Couzens	1994	MBLxP	Does not meet	Positive
Simonsen, Myers, and DeLuca	2010	MBLxB replicated xP	Does not meet	Positive
Suhrheinrich	2011	PreT/PostT-WG	Does not meet	Positive

Note. MBL = multiple baseline; xP = across participants; PreT/PostT = pretest–posttest; CG = control group; NE = not evaluated; WG = within-group; MP = multiple probe; xB = across behaviors.

For both measures.

Teacher data not displayed in a time-series fashion, although it was evaluated with student data that were reported in narrative.

Participants

Teachers

A total of 335 adult participants were included in studies that met criteria; of these, 322 were classified as teachers. The rest of the adult participants who were non-teachers (e.g., student teacher or assistant teacher) were included in studies with teachers, but as specified by the inclusion criteria, their data were disaggregated and not included in this review. The authors classified the majority of teachers (91%) as special educators, and this included teachers serving students in self-contained classrooms in public schools, early childhood programs, school-based work settings, separate facilities, and home settings. The other participants held other positions as teachers (e.g., “special area teacher”; Devlin, 2005), or the study did not identify an educator type (e.g., “classroom teacher”; Kamps, Walker, Maher, & Rotholz, 1992).

Teacher participants’ ages ranged from 22 to 55 years old. Ninety-three percent of teacher participants were female, and 7% were male. According to 13 studies that reported certification, 78% of teacher participants were certified in special education or held special credentials to teach the students they served (e.g., “Autism”; Suhrheinrich, 2011). Of the 14 studies reporting participants’ degree information (n = 99), 43% held master’s degrees in special education, 14% held master’s degrees in other fields, and 7% were working toward a master’s degree in special education at the time of the study. One study (i.e., Keen, Sigafoos, & Woodyatt, 2001) did not include the number of teacher participants for the available data.

All articles provided information on the types of students the teacher participants served at the time of the study and ranged from general (e.g., “classified as having moderate, severe, or profound developmental disability or autism . . . ”; Browder et al., 2012, p. 215) to specific (e.g., “Classroom 1 consisted of 5 boys [6-8 years of age] with autism”; Sigafoos, Kerr, Roberts, & Couzens, 1994, p. 634). Only eight studies provided specific, disaggregated information on the students’ disabilities. Of the teachers in these studies, 32% served individuals with ASD exclusively and 50% educated students with ASD and other disabilities (e.g., intellectual disability, emotional disorder). The other 18% of teachers did not serve students with ASD but were included in studies with other teacher participants who did.

Students

Twenty-one studies provided information on student participants who were included in the study alongside the teachers in some capacity. This resulted in a total of 586 students of varying disabilities including ASD. Studies with student participants either exclusively included participants with ASD or also included students with other disabilities. For 52% of studies with student participants, researchers collected and reported data on student variables to evaluate a functional relation of the effects of teacher training on student outcomes. Of the two studies that did not include student participants, one (i.e., Garland, Vasquez, & Pearl, 2012) had the teachers train through virtual reality using an avatar that displayed characteristics of ASD. The other study (i.e., Jimenez, Mims, & Browder, 2012) trained teachers who reportedly taught kids with ASD, but the evaluation of skills learned through training was related to making data-based decisions.

Teacher-Dependent Variables

Teacher data on procedural fidelity were empirically measured, while teachers were exposed to a variety of trainings. Most of the studies (83%) can be categorized by the strategy they sought to teach using the list of 24 focused interventions included in Odom et al.’s (2010) paper “Evidence-Based Practices in Interventions for Children and Youth with Autism Spectrum Disorders.” For more concise categorization, the four strategies under Behavioral Intervention Strategies were collapsed into one and into another one for the six strategies under Positive Behavior Support Strategies (see Table 3 in Odom et al., 2010), leaving 16 possible categories. As stated by Odom et al., some strategies have overlapping features. For example, the individual strategies listed under Behavioral Intervention Strategies are also components of Discrete Trial Training (e.g., prompting, reinforcement). Therefore, studies met classification in six categories based on the primary purpose of the study with respect to teacher training on procedures related to (a) Behavioral Intervention Strategies (n = 7), (b) Naturalistic Interventions (n = 6), (c) Discrete Trial Training (DTT; n = 3), (d) Positive Behavioral Support Strategies (n = 3), (e) Pivotal Response Training (PRT; n = 1), and/or (f) Other Strategies (n = 6). Studies categorized as Other Strategies did not fit into any EBPs listed by Odom et al. Two studies evaluated training on two (i.e., Lerman et al., 2008) and three (i.e., Lerman et al., 2004) different skills to each of the teacher participants and were categorized under multiple categories. Categorization of each study is listed in Table 2.

Table 2.

Information on Independent and Dependent Variables.

Author(s)	Strategies trained	Training delivery	Teacher measure(s)	Student target(s)
Bethune and Wood (2013)	PBS	Individual	Implementation on function-based intervention	Behavior
Browder et al. (2005)	Other	Self, individual, and group	Quality scores on alternate assessment	Academic
Browder et al. (2012)	Other	Group	Quiz on standards and curriculum Instructional components	Not included
Browder et al. (2007)	BI	Self, individual, and group	Implementation of literacy lesson task analysis	Academic
Devlin (2005)	Other	Group	Teacher–student interactions	Academic and behavior
Garland et al. (2012)	DTT	Individual	Implementation on DTT	N/A
Goodman et al. (2008)	BI	Individual	Rate of learning units	NR
Haring et al. (1987)	NI	Self	Cumulative opportunities for responses	Communication
Ingham and Greer (1992)	NI	Individual	Rate of correct reinforcer delivery and corrections	NR
Jimenez et al. (2012)	Other	Group	Quiz on data-based decisions	N/A
Kamps et al. (1992)	BI	Self and unknown	Trials, models, prompts, reinforcement, and interactions^a	Academic, behavior, communication, and social
Keen et al. (2001)	NI	Individual	OTR	Communication and social
Koegel et al. (1977)	DTT	Self and individual	Implementation on behavioral modification	Academic and communication
Lerman et al. (2008)	BI and other	Individual and group	Implementation on preference assessments and direct teaching	NR
Lerman et al. (2004)	BI, NI, and other	Individual and unknown	Implementation on preference assessments and direct teaching	NR
Machalicek et al. (2010)	PBS	Individual	Implementation on functional analysis conditions	NR
Pelletier et al. (2010)	PBS	Self	Implementation on behavior plan	NR
Ryan et al. (2008)	NI	Self and individual	Completed episodes of incidental teaching	Communication
Sarokoff and Sturmey (2004)	DTT	Individual	Implementation on DTT	NR
Schwartz et al. (1989)	NI	Group	OTR	Communication
Sigafoos et al. (1994)	NI	Individual	OTR	Communication
Simonsen et al. (2010)	BI	Self, individual, and group	Prompts, OTR, and praise	NR
Suhrheinrich (2011)	PRT	Self, individual, and group	Implementation on PRT	NR

Note. PBS = positive behavioral support strategy; BI = behavioral intervention strategy; DTT = discrete trial training; N/A = not applicable; NI = naturalistic intervention; NR= not reported; OTR = opportunities to respond; PRT = pivotal response training.

Study 2 only.

Student-Dependent Variables

As previously mentioned, data were collected on student behavior to evaluate a functional relation and data were reported for 12 studies. Using learner outcome categories from Odom et al. (2010), researchers collected data on student behavior across four different domains: Academic (n = 4), Behavior (n = 3), Communication (n = 7), and Social (n = 2). Four studies collected data on more than one student-dependent variable that fit into more than one category. One study, Ingham and Greer (1992), did not provide enough information on student responding to categorize what data were collected on. Student-dependent variables are listed for each study in Table 2.

Teacher Training Components

Studies were classified into three different categories based on the delivery of training component(s): (a) self-instruction (n = 9), (b) individual instruction (n = 16), and (c) group instruction (n = 9). Study components were categorized as self-instruction if manuals or other materials were given to teachers for self-guided learning (n = 6) or self-management strategies were used (n = 3). Studies categorized as individual instruction (n = 16) delivered training to one teacher at a time and typically included variations of coaching or consultation with a variety of training methods such as performance feedback, written instructions, discussions, role-playing, and modeling. Studies classified as group instruction (n = 9) delivered training to more than one person at a time and usually included lectures, discussions, and related group activities. Of the studies that reported number of participants attending large trainings (i.e., 56%), group size ranged from 2 to 75 participants. Intensity of training ranged from 1.5 to 18 hours across 1 to 5 days for the 89% who reported it. Group instruction usually involved lectures with handouts and activities such as discussion, video demonstration, team building, modeling, practice, and role-playing.

Fourteen studies used only one type of delivery component (61%), three studies used two types (13%), and four had components that classified across all three (17%). Two studies included some components that could not be categorized (9%). For example, in Kamps et al. (1992), it was clear that a manual was provided in Study 2 (i.e., self-instruction), but it was unclear whether the training in Study 1 and consultation in Study 2 occurred individually or in a group. Similarly in Lerman et al. (2004), it was clear that role-play sessions were conducted individually, but unclear whether the lecture and handouts were also delivered alone or with a group. Training components are listed for each study in Table 2.

Generalization and Maintenance

Eight studies provided information on generalization measures for teacher behavior with half reporting across more than one outcome. Studies assessed generalization outcomes across materials (n = 1), students (n = 3), behavior (n = 3), and/or setting (n = 4). Studies either reported data post-intervention, pre- and post-intervention, or during instruction. Eight studies assessed maintenance effects. Maintenance probes were conducted between 1 and 7 times and between 3 days and 3 months after training was completed. Several studies reported maintenance probes for some teacher participants but not others (e.g., Pelletier et al., 2010) or on some behaviors but not others (e.g., Lerman et al., 2004).

Social Validity

Fifteen studies solicited social validity information from their teacher participants. The most common method was a survey in which participants ranked statements using a Likert-type scale (56%). Three studies reported data on teacher choice between learned strategies. Other studies used informal measures such as open-ended questions, interviews, or focus groups, or used more than one measure.

Outcomes

Study outcomes of training programs on teacher behavior were rated both on their design quality and level of effects. Only designs evaluating functional relations were included in this analysis. For example, Browder et al. (2012) evaluated the effects of training with a pre/post-test quiz (included), but only a post-measure to evaluate the effects of training on teachers’ adherence to a task analysis (not included). To assess design quality, recommendations from What Works Clearinghouse (WWC; 2011) for both group and SCD were used. Designs of studies were rated as Meets, Meets With Reservations, or Does Not Meet. To measure the level of effectiveness of the intervention, results for participants serving students with ASD were rated as Positive, Negative, or Mixed (Lang et al., 2012; Machalicek et al., 2008). Only the results of the teacher participants serving individuals with ASD were included in an attempt to isolate issues and factors, particularly relevant to this group. For example, in Haring, Neetz, Lovinger, Peck, and Semmel (1987), there were a mixture of students with autism and other disabilities across three classrooms, and it was unclear as to which teachers taught which students. Studies’ effects were rated positive for SCD studies if a functional relation was present across all participants and behaviors. For group-design studies, they were rated as positive if a statistically significant change was found on within-group measures or between-group measures. Effects of training on teachers’ behavior were rated negative if no positive effects were present for any participants and/or behaviors in SCD studies and in group designs if statistically significant results were not found. Finally, if studies included only positive results for some participants or measures, they were rated as mixed. If group-design studies only reported descriptive statistics and no tests were conducted to evaluate significance (group) or data were not evaluated in a time-series fashion (SCD), effects were not rated.

Design quality and level of effects are available for all studies in Table 1. Twenty-one studies’ designs did not meet WWC design standards. For the two that did, both were SCD and one met design standards, and the other met with reservations. There were two main reasons SCD studies did not meet design standards. First, there were not enough data points (i.e., three or more) across enough multiple baseline/probe conditions (i.e., three or more) to evaluate a functional relation. Second, many studies did not collect and report inter-rater reliability data for 20% or more of observations in both baseline and intervention conditions. Group-design studies were all quasi-experimental and therefore did not meet standards. None of the studies met with reservations because they either did not include a control group or did not attempt to match groups based on equivalence measures. A total of 14 articles included participant data in which effects were evaluated because they specifically taught students with ASD (e.g., Classroom 1 includes four students with ASD, Classroom 2 includes three students with ASD, and Classroom 3 includes five students with intellectual disability). Studies that did not provide enough information about the students served by each classroom were not included (e.g., all classrooms have students with ASD or intellectual disability). Of the 14 evaluated, 93% reported positive findings, while the other 7% included participants with mixed results. None of the studies evaluated reported negative results.

Discussion

The best way for schools to provide effective educational settings for the growing number of students with ASD is by training and supporting teachers on a number of EBPs. Although use of EBPs is federally mandated, identifying and staying current with EBPs for individuals with ASD can be daunting for professional developers and others responsible for training. To help with this, federally funded programs such as the NPDC and others have done a great deal of work by placing treatments through rigorous analyses that resulted in lists of EBP to be used with individuals with ASD including accompanying materials and resources. The purpose of this review was to evaluate studies publishing effects of training teachers have received to teach individuals with ASD and categorize them using the list of available EBPs (Odom et al., 2010) to assist trainers on selecting components that can be most effective.

Results indicated that there are currently 23 studies that met criteria for this review. Most studies (35%) were either published in TESE or JABA. Both these seem logical considering TESE is a teacher education journal dedicated to the field and JABA centers itself on publishing studies evaluating practices in Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA). Looking across the years, the earliest article was published in 1977 with a recent surge in the past 10 years. Besides the increase in prevalence rate in individuals with ASD, two other reasons could account for the distribution of these articles: federal mandates and university programs. The earliest article in this review was published just 2 years after the passage of PL-94-142 when schools were mandated to provide services to individuals with disabilities (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 1975). In 1990, Autism was added to the list of possible eligibilities in public school systems (Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 1990), so prior to this, individuals with ASD may have been served under other categories (e.g., moderate intellectual disability). This possible exclusion of students with ASD who were not categorized using current eligibility classifications could be a limitation to the number of articles identified for this study. Another federal mandate, the passage of NCLB in 2001, required students to be educated with EBPs, and in 2004, IDEIA required school districts to train teachers on using EBPs.

University programs also followed suit by adding courses and programs dedicated to ASD (Barnhill et al., 2011). This has two possible outcomes related to the increase in studies in recent years. First, colleges of education are evaluating the best ways to train teachers in educating individuals with ASD. Second, university programs can deliver the specialized training individuals need to turn around and provide quality training to other in-service teachers.

Teacher participants in this review were most often identified as special educators and were certified as such. The majority held master’s degrees in special education or were working toward one at the time of the study. Speculation would lead one to believe that educators with master’s degrees in special education would know how to use procedures such as DTT and naturalistic communication strategies. The reality, which is opposite of this assumption, could be a reflection of the lack of specialized training teachers receive on educating students with ASD in university programs (Morrier et al., 2011; Scheuermann et al., 2003).

Teachers were most often responsible for educating students with other disabilities in addition to their students with ASD. Very few of the student participants with ASD were paired up with other teachers. This is valuable because training teachers to use EBPs with their own students may help increase appropriate adoption without making detrimental adaptations (Lang et al., 2010). For studies that reported characteristics of individuals with ASD, most participants were non-verbal and displayed challenging behavior. This adds to the realization in the field that educating students with ASD requires a variety of specialized training (Barnhill et al., 2011; Guldberg et al., 2011; Scheuermann et al., 2003; Webber & Scheuermann, 2008).

Of 16 possible categories (10 strategies from Odom et al., 2010 were collapsed into two; see the “Teacher-Dependent Variables” section), only 5 strategies were taught to teachers, with the most falling under Behavioral Intervention Strategies. Six studies included training on Other Strategies such as making data-based decisions (e.g., Jimenez et al., 2012), aligning standards (e.g., Browder et al., 2012), and conducting preference assessments (e.g., Lerman et al., 2004). For effective adoption to occur with EBPs, the acquisition and implementation of related skills such as those included as Other Strategies are equally as vital. For example, if a teacher learns how to conduct DTT with fidelity but does not know how to critically analyze data paths and make adaptions to instruction as needed, student outcomes could be compromised. Similarly, if a teacher implements a function-based intervention with fidelity, but does not have a reliable reinforcer, optimal reduction in problem behavior may not occur. Furthermore, without favorable student outcomes, teachers are likely to abandon the practice and deem it ineffective (Simonsen et al., 2010).

Training was classified into three delivery models: (a) self-instruction, (b) individual instruction, and (c) group instruction. Most studies included used individual instruction alone or in combination with other delivery types. This discovery aligns with current beliefs in best practice for in-service teacher education. Trainings that include coaching or performance feedback are more likely to lead to higher fidelity and adoption of EBPs than traditional workshops alone (Bethune & Wood, 2013). Additional research has suggested that performance feedback provided immediately is more effective and efficient than when provided later (O’Reilly, Renzaglia, & Lee, 1994; Sheeler, Ruhl, & McAfee, 2004). In this review, only 4 of 16 studies that provided individual instruction gave feedback while the teacher instructed students.

Merely a third of studies evaluated the effects of generalization and maintenance and a little over half used social validity measures. Although research on teacher training improves quality in-service, if the implementation fidelity does not maintain or the teacher is unable to generalize acquired skills to other students and environmental arrangements, it is a waste of time. Similarly, if teachers deem the intervention as inappropriate for any number of reasons, then the likelihood of its use is decreased. Social validity measures can provide information to the researcher, which leads to the inclusion of teacher variables in training packages that improve the likelihood of successful adoption of core components (Lang et al., 2010).

Future Research

While summarizing the literature on teacher training in ASD, several themes in regard to future research arose. As previously mentioned, only 5 of 16 possible EBPs for ASD were evaluated in training for teachers. Researchers should evaluate training for teachers on other practices found to be empirically supported for students with ASD (e.g., video modeling, work systems). A few studies included trainings on other vital skills related to implementing EBPs (e.g., preference assessments). Researchers should continue to investigate what trainings for teachers of students with ASD are needed in related areas and what training components are most effective and efficient. Some suggested trainings from the literature include developing and evaluating functional analyses (Machalicek et al., 2010), goal setting and evaluating progress (Lerman et al., 2004), and management of student behavior in a group (Kamps et al., 1992).

Twelve studies included data on student behaviors to evaluate a functional relationship between the teachers’ training and student outcomes. Using the learner outcomes listed in Odom et al. (2010), four of six possible student behaviors were measured. Although it is important to evaluate teachers’ fidelity of implementation of practices, student outcome variables provide the fundamental information needed to make decisions on what is socially valid to the student. Future studies that include student outcomes may help evaluate the level of fidelity needed by a teacher to have optimal student outcomes. This can lead to creating in-service opportunities that maximize time spent training teachers on different components of interventions for learners with ASD.

Many studies included multiple training components, even when only one delivery method was used (e.g., individual instruction included role-playing, video examples, and feedback). When this occurs, it is difficult to isolate the variable(s) that are responsible for any changes in the dependent variable. A systematic evaluation of components may help practitioners develop training that only include the elements necessary for ideal outcomes (Koegel, Russo, & Rincover, 1977; Sarokoff & Sturmey, 2004; Sigafoos et al., 1994). This could create trainings that are both time and cost efficient. Likewise, it would be valuable to compare different procedures to see what is most efficient for teacher acquisition, allowing practitioners to match up methods for training to different types of EBPs. This is important as some strategies may be more complex to use than others (Ryan, Hemmes, Sturmey, Jacobs, & Grommet, 2008) and educators enter the profession with various levels of preparation and training in ASD (Morrier et al., 2011). A few studies were able to demonstrate that their intervention was effective in comparison with another. For example, written materials were given (e.g., Garland et al., 2012; Machalicek et al., 2010; Ryan et al., 2008) or a lecture was conducted with participants (i.e., Bethune & Wood, 2013) before baseline. In one study (Browder, Trela, & Jimenez, 2007), pre-baseline data were collected, teachers attend a training on literacy instruction, baseline data were collected, and then individual training was introduced.

Most teachers included in this review were educating students in urban or suburban neighborhoods while receiving training. Only 20% were teaching in rural areas at the time of their study. Limited proximity to individuals specializing in ASD may be a reason teachers do not have access to quality training. Professional development that uses technology can mediate this by providing technical assistance and coaching through video-teleconferencing (e.g., Machalicek et al., 2010) and online learning (e.g., Jimenez et al., 2012). Researchers should continue to evaluate the best way to support and train teachers who are in rural areas or a great distance away from experts in the field.

One of the most important responsibilities for future researchers in teacher training and ASD is to conduct studies that meet high-quality standards. Only two studies either met design quality standards or met with reservations using WWC (2011) criteria. Although stringent, the field cannot expect to conduct studies on teacher training and ASD with less control than the studies conducted to validate EBPs. Quality studies will continue to create foundations for what are EBPs in training teachers to use a variety of empirically based ASD treatments, thus improving student outcomes. Finally, studies should continue to include measures of generalization, maintenance, and social validity. Most of the reported data on social validity were based on self-report, possibly lessening the validity of interpretation. Objective measures of social validity may lead to training packages that are more preferable for teachers.

Conclusion

To summarize, much work is to be done in the area of professional development and teachers of students with ASD. As the number of students and adults with ASD entering schools and post-secondary settings rises, the field must continue to evaluate trainings for practitioners that meet high-quality standards. Research on interventions for individuals with ASD helps move the field, but if these interventions are not being applied in public schools with fidelity, the EBPs are pointless alone. With regard to teacher training and ASD, future research should evaluate (a) training across all EBPs for ASD, (b) student outcomes to further validate teacher training, (c) individual training components by comparing or conducting component analyses to evaluate efficacy, (d) how technology can play a role in distance education on ASD for teachers, (e) training through high-quality group and SCD studies, and (f) data from other measures such as generalization, maintenance, and social validity.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Jennifer L. Alexander is a Board Certified Behavior Analysis who recently completed her PhD in special education at The University of Georgia. Her current research interest is in training teachers serving students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) how to effectively manage problem behavior

Kevin M. Ayres is an associate professor at The University of Georgia in special education. His research interests focus on behavioral applications of technology for individuals with ASD.

Katie A. Smith is a Board Certified Behavior Analysis who recently completed her PhD in special education at The University of Georgia. Her current research interests are in applied behavior analysis and ASD.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Ayres

K. M.

Langone

(2005). Intervention and instruction with video for students with autism: A review of the literature. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 183-196.

Barnhill

Polloway

E. A.

Sumutka

B. M.

(2011). A survey of personnel preparation practices in autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 26, 75-86.

Bethune

K. S.

Wood

C. L.

(2013). Effects of coaching on teachers’ use of function-based interventions for students with severe disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36, 97-114.

Blumberg

S. J.

Bramlett

M. D.

Kogan

M. D.

Schieve

L. A.

Jones

J. R.

M. C.

(2013). Changes in prevalence of parent-reported autism spectrum disorder in school-aged U.S. children: 2007 to 2011–2012 (Report No. 65). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Browder

D. M.

Jimenez

B. A.

Mims

P. J.

Knight

V. F.

Spooner

Lee

Flowers

(2012). The effects of a “tell-show-try-apply” professional development package on teachers of students with severe developmental disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35, 212-227.

Browder

D. M.

Karvonen

Davis

Fallin

Courtade-Little

(2005). The impact of teacher training on state alternative assessment scores. Exceptional Children, 71, 267-282.

Browder

D. M.

Trela

Jimenez

(2007). Training teachers to follow a task analysis to engage middle school students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities in grade-appropriate literature. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 206-219.

Bruinsma

Koegel

(2004). Joint attention and children with autism: A review of the literature. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 10, 169-175.

10.

Campbell

J. M.

(2003). Efficacy of behavioral interventions for reducing problem behavior in persons with autism: A quantitative synthesis of single-subject research. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24, 120-138.

11.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years: Autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 sites, United States, 2010. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 63, 1-21.

12.

Devlin

(2005). Effect of continuous improvement training on student interaction and engagement. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 30, 47-59.

13.

Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773 (1975).

14.

Fovel

J. T.

(2002). The ABA program companion. New York, NY: DRL Books.

15.

Garland

K. V.

Vasquez

Pearl

(2012). Efficacy of individualized clinical coaching in a virtual reality classroom for increasing teachers’ fidelity of implementation of discrete trial teaching. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 502-515.

16.

Goodman

J. I.

Brady

M. P.

Duffy

M. L.

Scott

Pollard

N. E.

(2008). The effects of “bug-in-ear” supervision on special education teachers’ delivery of learn units. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 23, 207-216.

17.

Guldberg

Parsons

MacLeod

Jones

Prunty

Balfe

(2011). Implications for practice from “international review of the evidence on best practice in educational provision for children on the autism spectrum.” European Journal of Special Needs Education, 26, 65-70.

18.

Haring

T. G.

Neetz

J. A.

Lovinger

Peck

Semmel

M. I.

(1987). Effects of four modified incidental teaching procedures to create opportunities for communication. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 12, 218-226.

19.

Hess

K. L.

Morrier

M. J.

Heflin

L. J.

Ivey

M. L.

(2008). Autism treatment survey: Services received by children with autism spectrum disorders in public school classrooms. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 961-971.

20.

Hill

(2012). Autism spectrum disorder, IDEA, and case law: Who really wins? Preventing School Failure, 56, 157-164.

21.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. No. 101-476, 104 Stat. 110 (1990).

22.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 108-446. 118 Stat. 2647 (2004). Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/wp-content/uploads/docs/PL108-446.pdf

23.

Ingham

Greer

R. D.

(1992). Changes in student and teacher responses in observed and generalized settings as a function of supervisor observations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 153-164.

24.

Jimenez

B. A.

Mims

P. J.

Browder

D. M.

(2012). Data-based decisions guidelines for teachers of students with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 407-413.

25.

Kamps

Walker

Maher

Rotholz

(1992). Academic and environmental effects of small group arrangements in classrooms for students with autism and other developmental disabilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 22, 277-293.

26.

Keen

Sigafoos

Woodyatt

(2001). Replacing prelinguistic behaviors with functional communication. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 385-398.

27.

Koegel

R. L.

Koegel

L. K.

(2006). Pivotal response treatments for autism: Communication, social, & academic development. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.

28.

Koegel

R. L.

Russo

D. C.

Rincover

(1977). Assessing and training teachers in the generalized use of behavior modification with autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 197-205.

29.

Lang

O’Reilly

M. F.

Healy

Rispoli

Lydon

Streusand

. . .Giesbers

(2012). Sensory integration therapy for autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1004-1018.

30.

Lang

O’Reilly

M. F.

Sigafoos

Machalicek

Rispoli

Shogran

. . .Hopkins

(2010). Review of teacher involvement in the applied intervention research for children with autism spectrum disorders. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 268-283.

31.

Leaf

McEachin

(1999). A work in progress: Behavior management strategies and a curriculum for intensive behavioral treatment of autism. New York, NY: DRL Books.

32.

Lerman

D. C.

Tetreault

Hovanetz

Strobel

Garro

(2008). Further evaluation of a brief, intensive teacher-training model. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 243-248.

33.

Lerman

D. C.

Vorndran

C. M.

Addison

Kuhn

S. C.

(2004). Preparing teachers in evidence-based practices for young children with autism. School Psychology Review, 33, 510-526.

34.

Machalicek

O’Reilly

M. F.

Beretvas

Sigafoos

Lancioni

Sorrells

. . . Rispoli

(2008). A review of school-based instructional interventions for students with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2, 395-416.

35.

Machalicek

O’Reilly

M. F.

Rispoli

Davis

Lang

Franco

J. H.

Chan

J. M.

(2010). Training teachers to assess the challenging behaviors of students with autism using video tele-conferencing. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 203-215.

36.

Matson

J. L.

Shoemaker

(2009). Intellectual disability and its relationship to autism spectrum disorders. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1107-1114.

37.

Maurice

Green

Luce

S. C.

(1996). Behavioral intervention for young children with autism: A manual for parents and professionals. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

38.

McDougall

Servais

Meyer

Case

Dannenhold

Johnson

Riggin

(2009). A preliminary evaluation of a school support program for children with autism spectrum disorders: Educator and school level outcomes and program processes. Exceptionality Education International, 19, 32-50.

39.

Morrier

M. J.

Hess

K. L.

Heflin

J. L.

(2011). Teacher training for implementation of teaching strategies for students with autism spectrum disorders. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34, 119-132.

40.

National Autism Center. (2009). Evidence based practice and autism in the schools. Randolf, MA: Author.

41.

National Research Council. (2001). Educating children with autism. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

42.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2001). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

43.

Odom

S. L.

(2008). The tie that binds: Evidence-based practice, implementation science, and outcomes for children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29, 53-61.

44.

Odom

S. L.

Collet-Klingenberg

Rogers

S. J.

Hatton

D. D.

(2010). Evidence-based practices in interventions for children and youth with autism spectrum disorders. Preventing School Failure, 54, 275-282.

45.

O’Reilly

M. E.

Renzaglia

Lee

(1994). An analysis of acquisition, generalization and maintenance of systematic instruction competencies by preservice teachers using behavioral supervision techniques. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 29, 22-33.

46.

Pelletier

McNamara

Braga-Kenyon

Ahearn

W. H.

(2010). Effect of video self-monitoring on procedural integrity. Behavioral Interventions, 25, 261-274.

47.

Perry

Condillac

(2003). Evidence-based practice for children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders: Review of the literature and practice guide. Toronto, Canada: Children’s Mental Health Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.kidsmentalhealth.ca/documents/EBP_autism.pdf

48.

Rispoli

Neely

Lang

Ganz

(2011). Training paraprofessionals to implement interventions for people with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 14, 378-388.

49.

Ryan

C. S.

Hemmes

N. S.

Sturmey

Jacobs

J. D.

Grommet

E. K.

(2008). Effects of a brief staff training procedure on instructors’ use of incidental teaching and students’ frequency of initiation toward instructors. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2, 28-45.

50.

Sarokoff

R. A.

Sturmey

(2004). The effects of behavioral skills training on staff implementation of discrete-trial teaching. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 535-538.

51.

Scheuermann

Webber

Boutot

E. A.

Goodwin

(2003). Problems with personnel preparation in autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18, 197-206.

52.

Schwartz

I. S.

Anderson

S. R.

Halle

J. W.

(1989). Training teachers to use naturalistic time delay: Effects on teacher behavior and on the language use of students. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 14, 48-57.

53.

Sheeler

M. C.

Ruhl

K. L.

McAfee

J. K.

(2004). Providing performance feedback to teachers: A review. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 396-407.

54.

Sigafoos

Kerr

Roberts

Couzens

(1994). Increasing opportunities for requesting in classrooms serving children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 631-645.

55.

Simonsen

Myers

DeLuca

(2010). Teaching teachers to use prompts, opportunities to respond, and specific praise. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 300-318.

56.

Simpson

R. L.

McKee

Teeter

Beytien

(2007). Evidence-based methods for children and youth with autism spectrum disorders: Stakeholder issues and perspectives. Exceptionality, 15, 203-217.

57.

Stahmer

A. C.

Collings

N. M.

Palinkas

L. A.

(2005). Early intervention practices for children with autism: Descriptions from community providers. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 66-79.

58.

Suhrheinrich

(2011). Training teachers to use pivotal response training with children with autism: Coaching as a critical component. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34, 339-349.

59.

Taylor

J. L.

Seltzer

M. M.

(2011). Employment and post-secondary educational activities for young adults with autism spectrum disorders during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Developmental Disorders, 41, 566-574.

60.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System. (2005). Children with disabilities receiving special education under Part B of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 2005.

61.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System. (2012). Children with disabilities receiving special education under Part B of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 2011. Retrieved from http://tadnet.public.tadnet.org/pages/712

62.

Webber

Scheuermann

(2008). Educating students with autism: A quick start manual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

63.

What Works Clearinghouse. (2011). Procedures and standards handbook (Version 2.1). Washington, DC: Author.

64.

White

S. W.

Leonig

Scahill

(2007). Social skills development in children with autism spectrum disorders: A review of the intervention research. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1858-1868.

65.

Yell

M. L.

Drasgow

Lowery

K. A.

(2005). No child left behind and students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 130-139.

66.

Yoon

K. S.

Duncan

Lee

S. W. Y.

Scarloss

Shapley

(2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

67.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2011). Autism litigation under the IDEA: A new meaning of “disproportionality?” Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24, 92-103.