Fm. Gresham et Dl. Macmillan, EARLY INTERVENTION PROJECT - CAN ITS CLAIMS BE SUBSTANTIATED AND ITS EFFECTS REPLICATED, Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 28(1), 1998, pp. 5-13
A comprehensive report to the National Institute of Health on the diag
nosis, etiology, epidemiology, and treatment of autism indicated that
early intervention has the potential of being an effective interventio
n (Bristol et al., 1996). In spite of this positive outlook, several r
esearch and methodological questions remain regarding time of treatmen
t initiation, intensity of treatment and duration of treatment, random
assignment, comparative treatment designs, and treatment integrity. A
gainst this backdrop we consider the claims made by the Early Interven
tion Project (EIP; Lovaas, 1987, 1993; McEachin, Smith, & Lovaas, 1993
). The EIP claims to produce recovery from autism in 47% of the cases
and to greatly reduce its severity in an additional 42% of cases. This
article evaluates the EIP against threats to internal and external va
lidity and is found to suffer from a number of methodological problems
. Based on rebuttals to criticisms of their program, the EIP authors s
eem unwilling to admit any methodological flaws in the sampling, desig
n, and analysis of data of the EIP It is recommended that parents and
fair hearing officers adopt an attitude of healthy skepticism before p
roceeding to an unqualified endorsement of the EIP as a treatment for
autism.