Practitioners’ Recommendations for Foundational Educational Supports for Elementary-Age Learners With Autism Spectrum Disorders

Abstract

Professional literature related to Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) has increasingly focused on identifying interventions and strategies most likely to lead to successful outcomes. However, there is a paucity of research documenting the basic foundational structure and supports that are needed to promote successful classroom experiences and outcomes. Specifically, literature does not clearly define the basic educational elements that are needed for all students with an ASD diagnosis. Related to this void, this study reports educational practitioners’ recommendations for foundational elements for four groups of elementary-age learners with ASD who differed in age and severity of disability. Participants offered recommendations for supports and program resources that fell within nine categories. Results are discussed relative to the extant literature along with implications for preservice teacher preparation, educators’ professional development, and elemental programming for learners with ASD.

Keywords

autism spectrum disorders foundational supports supports visuals educators

Children and youth with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) are remarkably unique, and the features that comprise ASD make individuals with this disability both an inimitable set and exceptionally challenging to manage. Variable assets and functioning levels, including in the core areas of cognitive, language, behavioral, and social abilities and needs among persons with ASD, contribute to these enigmatic perceptions (Thompson, 2007). More importantly, these same features and attributes make teaching children with ASD a challenging assignment (Scheuermann & Webber, 2002; Simpson & Myles, 2011; Wilson, 2013; Zager & Shamow, 2005). Predictable outcomes linked to the puzzling characteristics and challenging features associated with autism-related disorders are differences of opinion about educational and intervention methods and strategies most suitable for learners with ASD (Heflin & Alaimo, 2007; Iovannone, Dunlap, Huber, & Kincaid, 2003; Olson, Roberts, & Leko, 2015; Simpson, Mundschenk, & Heflin, 2011). Indeed, there has been passionate and often strident debate surrounding which interventions and teaching methods for learners with ASD hold the most promise (Heflin & Simpson, 1998; National Autism Center, 2009; Simpson, 2005). Independent of particular methodology preferences is the conviction that children and youth with ASD require specialized methods and interventions, and stakeholders generally agree that students with ASD achieve desired outcomes as a function of qualified personnel correctly using efficacious strategies (Mesibov & Shea, 2010; Odom, Boyd, Hall, & Hume, 2010; Stahmer et al., 2015). The central methodology issue among stakeholders is not whether students with ASD require specialized methods and interventions but rather which specialized methods are most suitable (Aspy & Grossman, 2008; Simpson, 2008).

Identifying maximally effective methods is clearly important and necessary. To be sure, the ASD-method vetting process is linked to improving both school and postschool outcomes for children and youth with ASD (Barnhill, Polloway, & Sumutka, 2011). In fact, progress on this important front has been made. The National Research Council Committee on Educational Interventions for Children With Autism (2001) identified several program elements needed to effectively serve young children with ASD. These same program elements continue to not be fully implemented in educational settings a decade later (Tincani, Cucchiarra, Thurman, Snyder, & McCarthy, 2014). As an extension of the National Research Council Committee work, Simpson and colleagues (2005) categorized and evaluated commonly used interventions and treatments for students with ASD; within five intervention categories (interpersonal relationship, skill based, cognitive, physiological/biological/neurological, and other), they rated 33 ASD intervention and treatment methods using a scientific support measurement rubric. The National Autism Center (2009) relied on an expert panel and an objective review protocol to evaluate more than 700 intervention and treatment studies relating to individuals with ASD. These procedures yielded four major ASD intervention and treatment classification categories: Established, Emerging, Unestablished, and Ineffective/Harmful. The National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders (2010) followed a similar protocol to that of the National Autism Center (2009) and reported comparable findings. More recently, Wong and colleagues (2015) conducted a comprehensive search of methods and interventions and identified 27 focused evidence-based practices. These methods have significantly contributed to advancing the use of specific evidence-based practices among professionals and other stakeholders.

In spite of this progress, there is relatively little known about the elemental components, supports, and resources that form the foundation for an effective educational program for all children with ASD. Such fundamental information is essential to serving an ever-increasing number of diverse students with ASD who populate both general and special education classrooms (DeBoer, 2009; Lang et al., 2010). These learners are significantly challenging the resources and capacity of school personnel; hence, understanding basic and universally necessary foundational components of effective programs in a variety of settings is central to improving aggregate program utility, and for planning useful and cost-efficient professional development programs. In this connection, the present study focused on identifying practitioners’ recommendations for basic elements and supports perceived to be crucial and fundamental for all students diagnosed with ASD.

Method

Participants

The study involved 120 experienced educators of students with ASD responding to one of four case descriptions of children with ASD. Each of the respondents worked in a public school educational program that served children with ASD. The cases described students with high-functioning autism in a primary elementary (K–3) or intermediate elementary (4–6) educational setting; or students with “classic” (severe) autism in a primary or intermediate elementary classroom. Respondents read randomly assigned case descriptions and selected supports, program resources, and programs they perceived to be foundational and critical for the students described in the four case studies.

Experienced teachers and related service professionals who held state-approved special education licensure/endorsement were recruited via mail solicitation sent to special education administrators in urban, suburban, and rural public school districts in two Midwestern states. The recruitment letter requested that administrators provide the study information to teachers or related service providers who had licensure/endorsement in special education and who had current contact with at least one student identified with an ASD. The letter requested that individuals willing to volunteer to participate contact the researcher. Individuals who responded to the solicitation were sent an electronic message outlining the participation requirements and a study consent form. One hundred and twenty volunteers from the pool of interested participants were randomly selected to participate in the study and randomly assigned to read one of the four case studies. Each of the four case descriptions was evaluated by 30 individuals.

The majority of the respondents were teachers (72%) and female (82%). The participants had 1 to 21+ years of experience, with the majority having 6 to 20 years’ experience and 87% having completed at least one college or university course specifically relating to students with ASD. All participants had attended conferences, workshops, or professional development sessions on ASD. In fact, 77% of the respondents estimated that they had accrued a minimum of 50 hr of professional training in the area of autism. Table 1 provides additional demographic data describing the study’s participants.

Table 1.

Demographic Data of Participants Responding to the Research Study.

Descriptor	Number of respondents	Percentage of respondents
State
Kansas	106	86
Missouri	17	14
Field
Teacher	86	70
ASD consultant	10	8
Speech–language pathologist	7	5
Occupational therapist	6	5
Physical therapist	1	1
School psychologist	7	6
Licensed master social worker	5	4
Director	1	1
Gender
Female	120	98
Male	3	2
Years of special education experience
0–1	0	0
1–5	31	25
6–10	29	24
11–20	35	28
21+	28	23
Number of participants who have completed ASD college courses
Yes	105	85
No	18	15
Number of ASD conference/workshop hours
Less than 50	27	22
50–100	50	41
100–150	14	11
150+	32	26

Note. ASD = Autism Spectrum Disorders.

Research Materials

For purposes of the study, a two-part instrument was developed to assess participants’ recommendations for foundational educationally related program resources and supports for elementary-age learners diagnosed with ASD. Part I was the four case studies; Part II was an evaluation survey that permitted study participants to identify supports, methods, and programs they considered basic and necessary for the students that were described in the case studies they were assigned to review.

Case studies

The case studies provided descriptive information, background, and characteristics about four fictitious students diagnosed with ASD. In addition to educationally relevant information, each case study included a family and a medical section.

To ensure equivalency, consistency, and reliability, the four case studies used the same base outline of a fictitious student. Variances in the student’s age and functional level distinguished the four cases. Descriptions of the children were based on diagnostic criteria for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), and a variety of educational text books that provided ASD descriptive information (e.g., Heflin & Alaimo, 2007). Each case description provided information about the learner’s behavior, motor skills, communication skills, social strengths and weaknesses, and preacademic/academic skills and deficits.

Case Study 1 provided information about a 7-year-old student diagnosed with high-functioning autism who was in a primary general education program. Case Study 2 described a similar primary elementary-age student who was also 7 years old but diagnosed with “classic autism.” Case Studies 3 and 4 described 10-year-old students who were enrolled in intermediate elementary grades. One was a student with high-functioning autism whose characteristics were similar to those of the student in Case Study 1, albeit he was older. The other was a 10-year-old child with “classic autism” whose characteristics were written in a fashion parallel to the child described in Case Study 2. Copies of the case studies are available from the senior author upon written request.

Survey

The survey instrument was designed to permit respondents to evaluate and recommend supports, methods, and program resources that educators might use in the education of the described students. The survey instrument instructed respondents to evaluate items relative to their perceived foundational utility and need in supporting the described students.

The basic framework for the survey instrument was an assessment tool developed to evaluate educational programs for students with ASD and to evaluate program needs relative to planning professional development programs (Simpson, 2002). This basic frame was modified to include a listing of commonly used and wide-ranging and broad-spectrum supports and program resources for children with ASD. For each of the general support categories, participants were queried about specific programs, strategies, interventions, and methods that corresponded to that domain. For example, for the general field classroom structure, respondents were instructed to rate an assigned student’s need for various structuring methods, such as a generic daily schedule, an individualized visual schedule, and environmental supports such as routines and physical structure.

These methods were drawn from strategies, supports, and resources identified by the National Research Council (2001); the National Autism Center (2009, 2015), the National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders (2010), and books describing methods and interventions for children and youth with ASD (e.g., Earles-Vollrath, Cook, & Ganz, 2006; Prelock & McCauley, 2012; Quill, 2000). The result of this instrument-development process was identification of nine general program support domains: (a) collaborative teaming; (b) human and other resources; (c) classroom structure; (d) academic, preacademic, and cognitive supports; (e) social skill supports; (f) challenging behavior supports; (g) family participation; (h) communication supports; and (i) sensory supports. Table 2 describes the components of each of these nine general domains.

Table 2.

Nine General Program Support Domains.

Program support domains	Defining elements
Collaborative teaming	• Team meetings • Team leader • Problem-solving process in place
Human and other resources	• Related-service provider support • Paraeducator support • Ongoing professional development
Classroom structure	• Visual supports • Organized environment • Defined staff roles
Academic, preacademic, and cognitive supports	• Assessment defining target skills • Individualized goals, curricula, and materials
Social skill supports	• Individualized goals and curricula • Structured peer-mediated interactions and supports
Challenging behavior supports	• Data collection • Functional Behavior Assments • Behavior Intervention Plans
Family participation	• Staff collaborating with families • Respect of families’ individual needs • Communication systems in place
Communication supports	• Augmentive-Alterntative Communication options for school and home use • Ongoing communication supports by qualified related service professionals
Sensory supports	• Full sensory evaluation • Individualized and age-appropriate sensory supports • Collaboration with qualified related service professionals

A 0 to 4 rating scale was created to permit participants to evaluate various methods and supports identified on the survey instrument relative to their necessity in supporting the students described in the four case studies. A rating of 0 indicated that the professional was unfamiliar with and/or lacked the necessary information to use the intervention or support. A rating of 1 indicated the intervention or support would not be needed or was unimportant in supporting the described student. A rating of 2 indicated the intervention or support would be somewhat important as a foundational strategy for the described student. A rating of 3 indicated the intervention or support would be important but not always essential as a foundational strategy for the described student. Finally, a rating of 4 indicated that the intervention or support would be essential as a foundational strategy for the student described in the case study.

Field testing

A field test was conducted to assist in affirming the instrument’s utility and appropriateness for use in the study. Four individuals familiar with and experienced in educating students with autism were asked to evaluate and provide feedback on the research study materials. Each member of this vetting crew was an experienced teacher of students with ASD, and each held either a master’s or doctoral degree in special education with an emphasis in ASD.

The evaluators provided feedback on both the case study and the evaluation instrument using a structured evaluation rubric. The rubric structured the review and evaluation process by asking each of the respondents to independently evaluate (a) the clarity and realism of the case studies, (b) whether the rating scale was appropriate for the survey and understandable and utilitarian for rating the listed methods and supports, and (c) whether the listed programs and supports were appropriate and complete. The four evaluators were also encouraged to provide other feedback they felt was pertinent in a comments section of the evaluation form. Based on the feedback from these experts, the case studies and surveys were minimally amended to provide greater clarity in wording. No concerns regarding format or missing support categories or other information were noted by the vetting group.

Procedures

Participants accessed their randomly assigned case study and survey via the Internet site, SurveyMonkey™. Participants were instructed to read their randomly assigned case study and then rate the listed methods and supports relative to their value and necessity in supporting the student using the previously described 0 to 4 evaluation scale.

Results

This study compared experienced practitioners’ recommendations for essential and foundational supports and programs for four elementary-age students with ASD. The previously described 0 to 4 rating scale response metric was the unit of analysis. For example, an educational practitioner who responded that items connected to the foundational necessity of communication supports for the 10-year-old child with classic autism was “4” (e.g., student access to school-designed augmentative and alternative communication programs for use at home) would be indicating that this resource was an essential and foundational strategy for that particular student. In contrast, a rating of “2” would indicate that such supports were “somewhat important” as a foundational strategy for the student described in the case study.

Table 3 presents respondents’ mean and standard deviation scores for the nine domains of the survey instrument, age, and severity differences for the children described in the case studies. Table 4 presents a summary of the 2 × 2 × 9 mixed-design multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA; Keppel & Wickens, 2004) results. These analyses show respondents’ recommendation comparisons across the survey instrument fields, relative to ages and severity of disability differences for the learners described in the case studies.

Table 3.

Respondents’ Mean and Standard Deviation Scores for the Nine Domains of the Survey Instrument and Ages and Severity Differences for the Children Described in the Case Studies.

Mean, standard deviations, and number of participants per case study
Age	Functioning	M	SD	n
7 years	Classic autism	3.6104	0.13770	30
	Higher functioning autism	3.4998	0.26634	30
	Total	3.5551	0.21747	60
10 years	Classic autism	3.6307	0.20078	30
	Higher functioning autism	3.5051	0.23281	30
	Total	3.5679	0.22464	60
Total	Classic autism	3.6205	0.17100	60
	Higher functioning autism	3.5025	0.24802	60
	Total	3.5615	0.22025	120

Table 4.

Summary of the 2 × 2 × 9 Mixed-Design Multivariate Analysis of Variance.

Intervention category comparison across ages and functioning levels
Source	Intervention category	Type III sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Significance	$η_{p}^{2}$
Age	Collaborative teaming	0.141	1	0.141	1.866	.175	.016
	Human and other resources	0.086	1	0.086	0.606	.438	.005
	Classroom structure	0.021	1	0.021	0.291	.590	.003
	Academic, preacademic, and cognitive supports	0.059	1	0.059	0.390	.533	.003
	Social skill supports	0.000	1	0.000	0.003	.955	.000
	Challenging behavior supports	0.297	1	0.297	1.952	.165	.017
	Family participation	0.051	1	0.051	0.423	.517	.004
	Communication supports	0.001	1	0.001	0.003	.957	.000
	Sensory supports	0.264	1	0.264	1.255	.265	.011
	Error variance		107	0.934	0.834	.587
Functioning level	Collaborative teaming	0.111	1	0.111	1.477	.227	.013
	Human and other resources	0.526	1	0.526	3.718	.056	.031
	Classroom structure	0.108	1	0.108	1.498	.223	.013
	Academic, preacademic, and cognitive supports	0.871	1	0.871	5.780	.018^a	.048
	Social skill supports	0.209	1	0.209	1.572	.212	.013
	Challenging behavior supports	0.825	1	0.825	5.428	.022^a	.045
	Family participation	0.023	1	0.023	0.194	.661	.002
	Communication supports	11.116	1	11.116	50.845	.000^a	.307
	Sensory supports	0.884	1	0.884	4.200	.043^a	.035
	Error variance		107	0.586	8.384	.000
Age × Functioning Level	Collaborative teaming	0.285	1	0.285	3.777	.054	.032
	Human and other resources	0.295	1	0.295	2.088	.151	.018
	Classroom structure	0.372	1	0.372	5.179	.025^a	.043
	Academic, preacademic, and cognitive supports	0.000	1	0.000	0.001	.976	.000
	Social skill supports	0.173	1	0.173	1.300	.257	.011
	Challenging behavior supports	0.005	1	0.005	0.034	.854	.000
	Family participation	0.290	1	0.290	2.421	.122	.021
	Communication supports	0.742	1	0.742	3.396	.068	.029
	Sensory supports	0.228	1	0.228	1.084	.300	.009
	Error variance		107	0.814	2.725	.007

Significant effect interaction.

Collaborative Teaming

Respondents’ mean recommendations for collaborative teaming for each of the four case study children are shown in Table 3. As previously noted, the metric was respondent’s 0 to 4 scale ratings for the necessity of the support. The analysis revealed no statistically significant differences relative to age (F = 1.87, df = 1, p > .05) and functioning level (F = 1.47, df = 1, p > .05). The interaction effect differences for collaborative teaming, that is, between age and functioning level, also fell outside the range of statistical significance (F = 3.78, df = 1, p > .05). However, it is important to note that the value did approach the threshold of statistical significance (p = .054). This tentative/unconfirmed statistic can arguably be interpreted to suggest that educators who participated in the study perceived an increasing need for collaborative teaming for students with “classic autism” as they advanced in age.

Human and Other Resources

As described in Table 1, resources in support of children with ASD included such things as related service professionals, paraeducators, and ongoing professional development. There were no statistically significant differences among the four groups of participants who responded to the need for these supports, relative to students’ ages (F = 0.61, df = 1, p > .05) or functioning levels (F = 3.72, df = 1, p > .05). The interaction differences were also statistically nonsignificant (F = 2.09, df = 1, p > .05).

Classroom Structure

As shown in Table 4, the analysis of the age variable relative to the need for classroom structure was statistically nonsignificant (F = 0.29, df = 1, p > .05). The functioning level analysis also revealed statistically nonsignificant differences (F = 1.50, df = 1, p ≥ .05). There was a statistically significant interaction effect difference for classroom structure, that is, between age and functioning level (F = 5.18, df = 1, p < .05). It can be inferred from this MANOVA analysis that as an elementary-age student with “classic autism” becomes older, the need for classroom structure becomes greater. In contrast, the analysis suggests that respondents perceived that students with “higher functioning autism” have a lesser need for classroom structure as they advance in age.

Academic, Preacademic, and Cognitive Supports

There were no significant differences in respondents’ recommendations for academic, preacademic, and cognitive supports relative to age (F = 0.39, df = 1, p > .05). However, the recommendation differences connected to functioning level were statistically significant (F = 5.78, df = 1, p < .05). The age and functioning level interaction was not statistically significant (F = 0.00, df = 1, p > .05). These data suggest that more severely impaired students, that is, children with “classic autism,” are perceived to require additional academic, preacademic, and cognitive programming and supports.

Social Skill Supports

Respondents ratings for social skill supports indicated that there were no statistically significant differences, including for age (F = 0.003, df = 1, p > .05), functioning level (F = 1.57, df = 1, p > .05), or the interaction between age and functioning level (F = 1.30, df = 1, p > .05). Thus, participants appeared to perceive that there was a consistent need for social skills supports among the four groups of students with ASD.

Challenging Behavior Supports

The perceived need for behavioral supports did not statistically differ relative to age (F = 1.952, df = 1, p > .05). There was, however, a statistically significant main effect difference for student’s level of functioning (F = 5.43, df = 1, p < .05). The interaction between age and functioning level was not statistically significant (F = .03, df = 1, p > .05). One logical interpretation of this finding was participants believed that as students with “classic autism” advance in grade level, they demonstrate a greater need for challenging behavior supports.

Family Participation

Ratings of educators who participated in the evaluation revealed no statistically significant differences for involvement of parents and families, including relative to age (F = 0.42, df = 1, p > .05), functioning level (F = 0.19, df = 1,p > .05) and the age–functioning level interaction (F = 2.4, df = 1, p > .05). These responses appear to indicate that respondents considered parent and family involvement an important element of an effective program independent of students’ age or disability.

Communication Supports

Participants’ responses related to the need for communication supports for the four groups of students are shown in Table 3. Analysis of mean responses revealed no statistically significant differences based on student’s age (F = 0.001, df = 1, p > .05). However, recommendations for communication supports varied significantly relative to learners’ functioning levels (F = 50.85, df = 1, p < .05). The test for interaction differences between age and functioning level was not statistically significant (F = 3.40, df = 1, p > .05), albeit it did approach the threshold of significance. This arguably may suggest that respondents were leaning toward the perception that students with “classic autism” continually and increasingly require intensive communication supports as they advance in age, whereas children with high-functioning autism may require less intensive support. Nevertheless, based on educators’ recommendations, the needs of the so-called “higher functioning” learners require significant communication support and intervention.

Sensory Supports

Sensory support recommendations for the four groups of students indicated no statistically significant differences for age (F = 1.26, df = 1, p > .05) or the age-functioning level interaction (F = 1.10, df = 1, p > .05). However, educators’ recommendations related to level of functioning indicated statistically significant differences (F = 4.20, df = 1, p < .05). These responses suggest that respondents were of the opinion that students with more severe and classic forms of autism require more intensive supports to address sensory challenges.

Discussion

Neophyte instructors, related service professionals, and others who are inexperienced in working with children and youth diagnosed with ASD have generally received scant guidance and leadership regarding how best to teach learners with ASD (Barnhill et al., 2011; Barnhill, Sumutka, Polloway, & Lee, 2014; Simpson et al., 2011). All too frequently, these practitioners are expected to organize classrooms and design programs for learners with autism-related disorders without direction and assistance. Of course, one might argue that inexperienced and neophyte teachers and related service personnel have no business teaching students with ASD. Although perhaps logical, such an argument is impractical and unworkable. Unprecedented ASD prevalence increases and a significant proportion of learners with ASD who are receiving their education in general education settings mean that it is unrealistic to think that only highly qualified teachers with extensive experience and training in ASD will be responsible for the education of children and youth with autism-related disabilities. Without a doubt, all or at least the vast majority of educators require basic information about autism and knowledge and skill in designing and implementing an effective educational program for students with ASD. Rationale for such a position is simple: Most (and perhaps all) educators, including special educators, general education teachers, and related service professionals, will be responsible at some point in their career for designing and implementing a program for a learner with ASD.

Clearly, a lack of direction for educators who do not have extensive training and experience in the area of autism has made it difficult for these professionals to identify, appropriately implement, and evaluate elemental and essential strategies and methods that most successfully address the needs of learners with ASD. This same void of information has also impeded the design and execution of effective professional development and in-service education programs, including both experienced personnel and educators new to the field of ASD.

At the center of this matter is the urgent need to ensure that an ever-increasing number of learners with ASD have teachers and educational staff who have the basic knowledge, skills, and resources to create and maintain suitable learning environments for an exceptionally heterogeneous and challenging group of students. Significant gains have been made in identifying and advocating for use of specific interventions and treatments that have been objectively proven to have capacity to produce socially valid outcomes when appropriately applied (see, for example, documentation of the benefits of applied behavior analysis in Heflin & Alaimo, 2007; National Autism Center, 2009, 2015; Wong et al., 2015). Increasingly, there is recognition that not all interventions and treatments for learners with ASD have equal value and that identifying and using those interventions and treatments with the most potential to produce positive outcomes is imperative. In spite of that, identification of basic components of an effective program has yet to be clearly recognized.

Undeniable efforts to identify which of the myriad of specific interventions and treatments for children and youth with ASD have the most potential to lead to desired outcomes have paid dividends (National Autism Center, 2009, 2015; National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2010; Wong et al., 2015). There is also a strong conceptual agreement among stakeholders that learners with ASD require specialized supports and interventions (Simpson & Myles, 2016) and that children and youth with ASD can be expected to achieve their best outcomes when qualified personnel use effective methods (Odom et al., 2010). In spite of this consensus, identification of basic and common components that should be in place in all programs that serve students with ASD and that form the foundation for an effective individualized program has received far too little attention.

Respondents who participated in the current study were experienced in working with pupils with ASD. Thus, one could assume they applied a practitioner’s lens in analyzing the needs of the elementary students with ASD who were described in the case studies. Relative to vetting students’ ASD-related needs, this assumed practice to research perspective contrasts with a more traditional research to practice view. That is, it is logical to assume that the respondents were probably judging the merits of the various supports and specific strategies more on the basis of their perceived utility and benefit than on their scientific credentials and standing in the extant empirical literature. Relative to identifying most basic program components, these practitioners consistently appeared to have the opinion that age variance among elementary-age students with ASD was not a significant factor. That is, regardless of children’s ages, the participants generally had similar opinions about the need for supports and methods within the nine identified fields. Accordingly, they generally recommended that both 7- and 10-year-old students with ASD be provided programs that incorporate classroom structure, social skill supports, behavioral intervention programming, communication supports, and so forth. Of note, this study only examined a relatively narrow range of age difference (i.e., 7- vs. 10-year-olds); this age factor may indeed be viewed by practitioners as a more significant variable if comparisons were made relative to the needs of elementary- and secondary-age students.

Participants’ recommendations were a different matter relative to perceived program needs that aligned with functioning level differences. Recommendations for academic, preacademic, and other cognitive supports; challenging behavior supports; communication supports; and sensory supports were all statistically different (p < .05). Not surprisingly, practitioners appeared to recognize that all students with ASD generally require many of the same basic program components, however, the needs of students with classic/severe autism and those with higher functioning autism significantly differ for some domains. In an arguably predictable direction, respondents’ recommendations were for additional required supports for students who are more severely impaired (i.e., learners described as having a diagnosis of “classic autism”) when compared with higher functioning students. Several comparisons across functioning levels that yielded nonsignificant statistical results are also interesting. In particular, respondents’ reactions to the need for collaborative teaming, classroom structure, social skill training and social interaction supports, and family participation suggest that these are viewed as fundamental elements of a program for all levels of ASD functioning.

The single statistically significant interaction effect difference was for the classroom structure comparison. Respondents’ recommendations can be inferred to mean that elementary-age students with more severe forms of autism will continue to require significant classroom structure as they advance in age; in contrast, children with higher functioning autism require less structure. The precise meaning of this finding awaits further research; however, there are at least two possible hypotheses: First, experienced practitioners may hold the opinion that the assets that characterize a diagnosis of “high-functioning autism” permit these children to function without as much classroom support as they become older. Another interpretation is that these learners require the same level of structure as they become older. However, as they will likely be in general education classrooms where there will likely be a reduced level of structure in upper elementary grades, respondents may have been thinking that these students need to become accustomed to operating with less classroom and school structure.

The interaction effect comparison for collaborative teaming failed to reach the threshold of statistical significance (p > .05), albeit the significance probability statistic was .054. Thus, we think this support category warrants discussion. Although technically a nonsignificant difference, this pattern may nevertheless suggest that study participants perceived an ever-present need for collaborative teaming on behalf of students with “classic autism” as they advanced in age. However, children with less severe forms of autism may need a lesser amount of collaborative involvement among their professional teams as they advance through the elementary grades. Researchers were baffled in interpreting this near statistically significant difference. There appears to be strong sentiment in the professional literature (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2009) and among practitioners (Musti-Rao, Hawkins, & Tan, 2011) that all students, including those diagnosed with ASD, require that their support teams work together and regularly communicate and that this need will continue across the life span (Friend & Cook, 2011).

It is clear that the ASD community is in an early stage relative to identifying and using the most effective and utilitarian methods. Nevertheless, noteworthy work on this subject has led to significant progress in identifying and using methods that are leading to improved outcomes for children and youth with ASD. These are clearly important and positive signs. In spite of that, there remains a need to more definitively identify the foundational components that need to be in place in all educational programs that serve learners with ASD. There should be little doubt that this will advance the ASD field.

Limitations of the Study

The current study was based on consideration of evidence-based methods purported to be foundational for the success of learners with ASD. As with any study, there are limitations to this research. First, there are few comparison studies by which to judge its reliability; hence, it would be beneficial to replicate the original study to determine whether the same results are obtained. In addition, there are limitations in using fictitious case examples. Replicating the study using actual students rather than case studies would be helpful in clarifying indispensable foundational interventions and supports. Third, the instrument used in the study was arguably limited in its range of considered interventions and supports. Finally, the study was limited by the geographic location of respondents, specifically two Midwestern states. Increasing the size of the sample, and including a range of urban, suburban, and rural districts from the entire United States, would provide a more accurate picture of interventions and supports that practitioners consider vital for achieving positive outcomes with learners with ASD.

Implications for Future Research

One clear next step for building on the current research is to focus on students outside of the elementary-age range. Learners who are served in middle and high schools are an obvious focus of such work. In addition, using actual students rather than case studies will help establish a more reliable understanding of perceived foundational needs of children and youth with ASD as previously noted.

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.

References

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

Aspy

Grossman

(2008). The Ziggurat model. Shawnee Mission, KS: Autism-Asberger Publishing Company.

Barnhill

Polloway

Sumutka

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

Barnhill

Sumutka

Polloway

Lee

(2014). Personnel preparation practices in ASD: A follow-up analysis of contemporary practices. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 29, 39–49.

DeBoer

(2009). Successful inclusion for students with autism. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Earles-Vollrath

Cook

Ganz

(2006). How to develop and implement visual supports. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Friend

Cook

(2011). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Heflin

L. J.

Alaimo

(2007). Students with autism spectrum disorders: Effective instructional practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

Heflin

L. J.

Simpson

R. L.

(1998). Interventions for children and youth with autism: Prudent choices in a world of exaggerated claims and empty promises. Part I: Intervention and treatment option review. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 13, 194–211.

10.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,regs,300,A,300%2E8,c

11.

Iovannone

Dunlap

Huber

Kincaid

(2003). Effective educational practices for students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18, 150–165.

12.

Keppel

Wickens

T. D.

(2004). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

13.

Lang

O’Reilly

M. F.

Sigafoos

Machalicek

Rispoli

Shogren

. . . 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.

14.

Mastropieri

Scruggs

(2009). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

15.

Mesibov

Shea

(2010). The TEACCH program in the era of evidence-based practice. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 570–579.

16.

Musti-Rao

Hawkins

Tan

(2011). A practitioner’s guide to consultation and problem solving in inclusive settings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44, 18–26.

17.

National Autism Center. (2009). National standards report. Randolph, MA: Author.

18.

National Autism Center. (2015). National standards project, phase 2. Randolph, MA: Author.

19.

National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders. (2010). Evidence based practices. Chapel Hill, NC: Author.

20.

National Research Council. (2001). Educating children with autism (Committee on Educational Interventions for Children With Autism, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

21.

Odom

Boyd

Hall

Hume

(2010). Evaluation of comprehensive treatment models for individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 425–436.

22.

Olson

A. J.

Roberts

C. A.

Leko

M. M.

(2015). Teacher-, student-, and peer-directed strategies to access the general education curriculum for students with autism. Intervention in School and Clinic, 51, 37–44.

23.

Prelock

McCauley

(2012). Treatment of autism spectrum disorders: Evidence-based intervention strategies for communication and social interactions. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

24.

Quill

(2000). Do-watch-listen-say. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

25.

Scheuermann

Webber

(2002). Autism: Teaching does make a difference. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

26.

Simpson

R. L.

(2002). University of Kansas ASD program assessment instrument. Lawrence: Department of Special Education, University of Kansas.

27.

Simpson

R. L.

(2005). Evidence-based practices and students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 140–149.

28.

Simpson

R. L.

(2008). Children and youth with autism spectrum disorders: The elusive search and wide-scale adoption of effective methods. Focus on Exceptional Children, 40(7), 1–14.

29.

Simpson

R. L.

deBoer

Griswold

Myles

Byrd

Ganz

. . . Adams

(2005). Autism spectrum disorders: Interventions and treatments for children and youth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

30.

Simpson

R. L.

Mundschenk

Heflin

(2011). Issues, policies and recommendations for improving the education of learners with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22, 3–17.

31.

Simpson

R. L.

Myles

(2011). Asperger syndrome and high-functioning autism: A guide for effective practice. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

32.

Simpson

R. L.

Myles

B. S.

(2016). Educating children and youth with autism (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

33.

Stahmer

A. C.

Rieth

Lee

Reisinger

E. M.

Mandell

D. S.

Connell

J. E.

(2015). Training teachers to use evidence-based practices for autism: Examining procedural implementation fidelity. Psychology in the Schools, 52, 181–195.

34.

Thompson

(2007). Making sense of autism. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

35.

Tincani

Cucchiarra

M. B.

Thurman

S. K.

Snyder

M. R.

McCarthy

C. M.

(2014). Evaluating NRC’s recommendations for educating children with autism a decade later. Child Youth Care Forum, 43, 315–337.

36.

Wilson

K. P.

(2013). Incorporating video modeling into a school-based intervention for students with autism spectrum disorders. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44, 105–117.

37.

Wong

Odom

Hume

Cox

Fettig

Kucharczyk

. . . Schulz

(2015). Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism spectrum disorder: A comprehensive review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45, 1951–1966.

38.

Zager

Shamow

(2005). Teaching students with autism spectrum disorders. In Zager

(Ed.), Autism spectrum disorders: Identification, education and treatment (pp. 295–326). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.