EARLY INTERVENTION PROJECT - CAN ITS CLAIMS BE SUBSTANTIATED AND ITS EFFECTS REPLICATED

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.