Communication Support Interventions to support communication among children and young people with an ASD. Includes alternative and augmentative communication (AAC) such as Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) and Speech Generating Devices (SGDs).57 Language and communication skills. SGDs demonstrate strong effects on improving challenging behaviour and moderate effects on academic outcomes.57 PECS demonstrate moderate – strong effects on social skills.57 Stronger effects of these interventions are in educational settings, particularly in mainstream settings.57 Teacher training Investigating the use of evidence-based practices (EBP) among teachers with students with autism (self-instruction, group-instruction and individual instruction).58 Use of instructional practices in the classroom for students with an ASD.59 Change in teacher practice following professional development. The communication, functioning, play and social skills of children and young people with an ASD. Predictor of use of EBP was observed improvement in student outcomes.58 There was an interaction between instructional practices and improvements in communication, functioning, play and social skills among children and young people with an ASD.59 School organisational strategies Organisational strategies to promote inclusion of students with an ASD in schools.60 Social and communication skills, participation and engagement. Response to intervention and system-wide behaviour support can reduce the number of students requiring intensive support.60
Table 2: Summary of types of funding models Model Description Strengths Weaknesses Examples Input funding categorical) Allocating individual funding based on child or young person’s diagnosis and/or severity of need. Good for students with high needs who require ongoing intensive support. Need may already be established by other funding supports (e.g. NDIS) which would reduce costs for Deficit focused. Can incentivise positive diagnosis so that children and young people receive appropriate supports. Drive individual interventions such as integration aides where there is limited evidence of educational impact. UK (personalised budget), Holland, NZ, AUS (NT, SA, ACT) Throughput funding (base funding) Allocating grants to schools/districts. Amount of funding can be made proportionate to need, e.g. by using census data. Appropriate for children and young people with mild-moderate needs (estimated 16-18% of the population). More focused on functioning, less-focused on individual child or young person’s deficit. Reduces stigma and labelling. Promotes inclusive education. Reduces tendency for inflation of needs/diagnoses. Encourages local responses. Allows for change in student needs over time. Significant responsibility for school leaders/district authorities to allocate, utilise and manage funds appropriately. Belgium assessment.
Output funding Allocating funds based on achievement scores. For instance, schools with achievement scores in the lowest 10% may receive additional funding. Additional funding based on improved student learning outcomes. More support for all students. Greater degree of accountability for funds and the use of them to result in positive outcomes. Larger possibility for perverse incentives as there are high stakes (particularly if national testing is used as a means to determine funding allocation). Discretionary funding Usually this is additional funding allocated based on a category of disability. Can also be based on level of disadvantage, or presence of comorbidity. Provision of additional support possible for children and young people with added disadvantage as well as a disability. Can support the attainment of more equitable outcomes given the focus on disadvantage. Relies on quality data, and appropriate weightings for disadvantage. Combined model 1: input & throughput Throughput funding for the majority of children and young people, with some input funding for those with severe needs. Can be utilised for children and young people with mild to severe needs. Affords a balance of flexibility and autonomy to schools, Assessment could be complex and expensive, as there would need to be a combination of functional Sweden, AUS (QLD, TAS, VIC)
Search terms were entered under ‘keywords’ in MEDLINE and PsycInfo and limited to ‘subject’ in ERIC. ‘Education’ terms were included in MEDLINE and PsycInfo searches for SHCN and ASD, but not in ERIC. For example, in PsycInfo, the SHCN search combined terms for SHCN with terms for children, funding and education. In ERIC, the SHCN terms were combined with children and funding only. Results from all searches were limited to literature published from 2005 to 2015 in English. Search terms The search terms for each of the categories are listed below: Children terms: Children, Children with disabilities, Early childhood, Learning disabled children, Students, Teenagers Funding Models terms: Economics, Financing, Costs, Funding, Monetary Support Education terms: Education, School, Learning, Primary School, Elementary School, Secondary School, High School, Students, Teaching, Training Support Special health care needs terms: Health conditions, Chronic illness, Special Health Problems, Disabilities, Multiple disabilities, Mild disabilities, Severe disabilities, Special health care needs, Special needs, Additional needs, Special education needs ASD terms: Autistic Disorder, Asperger Syndrome, Pervasive Developmental Disorder, PDD, ASD Dyslexia terms: Dyslexia, Reading disorder, Alexia, Learning difficulties, Dyscalculia Table 3: Number of records extracted for each search by database Condition Database Number of Records Extracted Special Health Care Needs MEDLINE 120 PSYCINFO 347 ERIC 183 ASD MEDLINE 25 PSYCINFO 29 ERIC 27 Dyslexia MEDLINE 11 PSYCINFO 26
Table 6: Summary of reviews and meta-analyses of ASD interventions sourced through the supplementary search Reference N Age Design Intervention(s) Target behaviour(s) Effect size/outcome Bellini et al., (2007) 157 3 – 18 years Meta-analysis of 55 single-subject studies. School-based social skills interventions (peer-mediated, individual, collateral and comprehensive). Social behaviours (eg: initiation, responses, duration of interaction). PND= 70% (treatment effect) Kokina & Kern (2010) Meta-analysis of 41 single-subject studies. School-based social skill intervention using social stories. (Short stories that explain difficult social situations in simple terms for children and young people with ASD). Transition support, reducing anxiety, functional skills, improving social behaviours. Overall PND (median) = 62% Assisting with transition/reducing anxiety/novel situations PND (median)= 44% Teaching academic/functional skills PND = 22% Improving appropriate social behaviours PND = 22% Reducing inappropriate behaviours PND = 87% Whalon et al., (2015) 105 3-12 years Meta-analysis and review of 37 single-case studies. School-based social interventions, to enhance social competence (child-specific, social narratives, Social behaviours (eg: initiation, responses, interactions and engagement). Overall initiations NAP = .90, Tau-U = .79; responses NAP= .92, Tau-U = .83;
interactions NAP = .87, Tau-U = .75; engagement NAP = .96, Tau-U = .91 Fava & Strauss, (2014) 894 2 - 10 years Synthesis of six meta-analyses from 2009 – 2011. Early intensive behavioural intervention (EIBI) for young children with parental inclusion. Adaptive behaviours, language and cognitive skills. IQ g = .19 - 1.56 (n= 471) Language g = 1.08 (n= 199) Adaptive behaviour g=.64 (n=482) Odom et al. (2012) Unknown Early childhood (3-5 years) Review of 15 studies examining IBI approaches and eclectic approaches to Variety of components used across the reviewed studies. Included combinations of a discrete trial, ABA, behavioural treatments or approaches, Cognitive skills, behavioural skills and language. Improving overall functioning was also an aim of the interventions. Seven of the 9 studies of IBI found significant improvements in cognition, development, behaviour, and language and/or autism condition/severity.
behavioural intervention. naturalistic intervention and generalisation opportunities. Ganz et al. (2014) 33 3 – 12 years Meta-analysis of 13 studies. Interventions to support communication among children and young people with an ASD. Includes alternative and augmentative communication (AAC) such as PECS and SGDs. Language and communication skills. PECS Intervention Effects: Communication, IRD= .71 <<.73>>.75; Challenging behaviour, IRD= .51 <<.59>>.66, Social skills IRD= .70<<.77>>.85 SGD Intervention Effects: Communication, IRD= .69<< .71>> .74, Challenging behaviour, IRD = .74<<.83>>.92, Academic IRD=.61<<.66>>.71 Other AAC Intervention Effects:
considered strong and robust) for young children with ASD. Alexander et al. (2015) 322 teachers 22-55 years Narrative review of 23 studies evaluating the use of evidence based practices. Investigating the use of evidence based practices amongst teachers with students with autism and individual instruction). Change in teacher practice following professional development. 93% of studies included that evaluated the effects of teacher training by behaviour change reported positive results. Machalicek et al. (2008) 118 3 – 21 years Narrative review of 45 studies evaluating instructional practice for students with an ASD. Use of instructional practices in the classroom for students with an ASD. For children and young people with an ASD communication, functioning, play and social skills. Studies addressing communication (11), 33/34 participants experienced positive change, studies addressing functioning positive changes = 15/17, studies addressing play (11) 28/29 participants reported positive change, studies addressing social skills (12), 32/33 participants reported positive change.
Crosland & Dunlap (2012) Unknown Unknown Narrative review of research in the area of supporting the inclusion of students with ASD in mainstream education settings. Individualised and organisational strategies to promote inclusion of students with an ASD in schools. Social and communication skills, participation and engagement. School climate and school organisational processes can support the inclusion of students with an ASD. Response to Intervention, and system wide positive behaviour support can ensure that universal screening is provided, and that students are less likely to need intensive support. Individualised strategies work well to support the development of peer relationships and independent learning.