Critical Issues and Trends in the Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices in Educational Settings for Students With Autism: A 20-Year Update—Introduction to the Special Series

Schools continue to be a primary source of interventions and supports for children and youth with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). Currently, about 18.5 per 1,000 school-age children are being educated under the autism category, representing approximately 2.5% of the overall U.S. school population (Maenner et al., 2020) and 12% of all students with disabilities (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). Autism is the fourth most common disability category, following specific learning disability (33%), speech or language (19%), and other health impaired (15%). The continued increase of autism prevalence co-exists with an increased need for schools, specifically teachers, to deliver empirically supported (i.e., evidence-based) practices.

Since the first (and only) Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities special series on issues and trends impacting autistic students in 2003, research on school-based evidence-based practices has grown exponentially; however, the research-to-practice gap continues to exist in educational settings, not only in implementing strategies with empirical support but also in implementing strategies with fidelity by typical educators in typical school settings (Hamrick et al., 2021). Furthermore, much of the research conducted has not addressed generalization of intervention outcomes beyond the specific context of the study that would result in meaningful change leading to sustainability. The purpose of this special series is to advance and highlight the current critical issues and trends that impact the research and implementation of evidence-based practices for students with autism.

The first two articles report research that studied factors impacting teacher implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs), thus providing better understanding as to what may be contributing to the research-to-practice gap. Lukins, Able, and Hume used a mixed methods approach to look at how preparation, knowledge, and experiences of novice teachers affect their implementation of EBPs. Results suggested that teacher use of EBPs was shaped most by their procedural understanding of the practice and their perception of positive social validity. The two EBPs that teachers reported as having the highest social validity and knowledge were foundational behavioral practices and visual schedules. The authors conclude with recommendations for enhancing future implementation of EBPs that aim to develop novice teachers’ positive perceptions of EBPs by encouraging both conceptual buy-in to use the strategy and providing ample opportunities for teachers to practice using the strategy.

Melgarejo and colleagues explored how implementation climate and leadership across diverse types of special education organizations (e.g., states, consortiums, regional, districts, and schools) contributed to one state’s scale-up for use of EBPs. The authors employed mixed methods (i.e., focus groups and surveys) and found that implementation climate and implementation leadership were relatively higher in regional special education consortiums—followed by county-based technical support entities—than in the other organizations. Given the importance of and the bi-directional nature of implementation climate and leadership on each other and on scaling up use of EBIs, the authors identified actions that could be taken by leaders in educational organizations to improve competencies in these areas.

The authors of the next three articles conducted research examining implementation of EBPs in school settings. Stahmner and colleagues used a randomized controlled design to examine effects of classroom pivotal response training across student/teacher dyads. The authors demonstrated that use of the intervention resulted in greater student engagement and learning. These results are important as they also highlight the value of combining didactic training with in-classroom coaching.

Bewley, Crosland, and Fuller used single-subject methodology to evaluate whether computer-assisted instruction (CAI) effectively reduced the latency of on-task behavior between classroom transitions. Using an alternating treatment design, they evaluated a CAI intervention for two different transition routines. Videos lasting approximately 2 min that explained the expected behaviors during transitions were made to teach students the specific behaviors. A smartphone using Chromecast displayed the CAI program on a classroom monitor. The CAI program was multisensory and included recorded verbal transition prompts, visual countdown clocks, and music that played during the pre-determined transition time. Results indicated student improvement in reducing the latency of classroom transition time, increased engagement in transition behaviors, high teacher implementation fidelity, and high ratings of social validity from both teachers and students.

Finally, Deenihan, Blair, and Iovannone report on the results from a single-subject study they conducted to investigate whether behavior intervention plans developed using the Prevent-Teach-Reinforce (PTR) model of functional behavior assessment would be (a) effective for three high school students with autism and (b) implemented with fidelity by their teachers. Blair et al. documented high fidelity implementation of PTR and associated reductions in challenging behavior. An important feature of this article is implementation in a high school setting; there are very few studies documenting behavior support interventions in secondary settings.