Background

It is known that children with disabilities, especially adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), are at increased risk for victimization. However, little is known about the impact of victimization over time.

Aims

Primary aims included identifying to what extent risk factors (i.e., internalizing behavior problems and conflict in friendship) related to bullying victimization over time.

Methods and procedures

In-depth interviews conducted separately with 15-year-olds with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability (ID), or typical development (TD) and their mothers investigated the experiences of victimization in a two-year follow up to an earlier study at adolescent age 13.

Outcomes and results

Findings at age 15 demonstrated that the highest rates of bullying continued to be endorsed by youth with ASD. However, youth with ID were found to experience and report the most severe bullying. Longitudinal examination revealed that internalizing behaviors at age 13 predicted victimization experiences at age 15.

Conclusions and implications

During middle adolescence, youth with ASD continue to experience more frequent victimization. Thus, shifting the focus of interventions that not only target the salient social deficits of ASD, but also address comorbid conditions such as internalizing symptoms, may further contribute to reduction of social isolation and peer difficulties.

Background

Research in autism spectrum disorders (ASD) has identified a need to understand key components of complex evidence-based practices (EBP). One approach involves examining the relationship between component use and child behavior.

Aims

This study provides initial evidence for identifying key components in a specific EBP, Pivotal Response Training (PRT). We examined which components were related to child response and evaluated relationships between provider characteristics, child characteristics and component intensity.

Methods

Trained coders reviewed archival videos (n = 278) for PRT fidelity and child behavior. We completed multi-level regression and latent profile analysis to examine relationships between intensity of individual or combinations of PRT components and child behavior, and moderators of component use.

Results

Analyses indicated differential relationships between specific components and child behaviors which may support methods of altering intensity of components to individualize intervention. Profile analysis suggested relatively intensive use of most PRT components, especially antecedent strategies, may maximize child responsivity. Providers with postgraduate education trended toward higher intensity component use. Child characteristics did not moderate use.

Implications

Careful examination of key components of ASD interventions may helps clarify the mechanisms of action. Recommendations specific to PRT implementation and use of the methodology for other interventions are discussed.