ABSTRACT
Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) present deficiencies in interference control processes. The main aim of this pilot study was to analyze the efficacy of an educational intervention designed to optimize the interference control of eight ASD children, attending to their ASD severity level. A mixed-methods approach grounded in systematic observation and nomothetic/follow-up/multidimensional observational designs was used. An observation instrument was developed to code data, which were grouped according to the ASD severity level (Group 1, requires support; Group 2, requires substantial support) and were analyzed using a lag sequential analysis. The results show that, although both groups progressed during the intervention and could have continued to improve, each group evolved differently. Group 1 performed relatively well from the onset and increased and developed their interference control strategies throughout the intervention, while Group 2, despite also acquiring new interference control strategies, took more time to show improvements. One month after the intervention ended, both groups were unable to consolidate the strategies learned. A mixed-methods approach allowed for real interference control deficits in ASD children to be captured in a natural context. To conclude, it would be necessary to lengthen this intervention and adapt it to the needs of each group.
ABSTRACT
The literature confirms that individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have planning deficits. However, few interventions have targeted these deficits. The aims of this study were to: (1) show that the mixed methods approach can be useful in studying planning skills of children with ASD during and after an educational intervention; (2) assess whether the planning skills of two groups of children with ASD improved during the intervention and if this progress was maintained 1 month after completing the intervention. The groups were formed depending on each child's severity level (SL) of ASD according to DSM-5: SL1 (requiring support) and SL2 (requiring substantial support). Each group was composed of four children. In the framework of mixed methods, we used observational methodology, which is considered as mixed methods in itself because it integrates qualitative and quantitative elements. A nomothetic/follow-up/multidimensional observational design was used. Planning skills manifested by children during the intervention were codified, as well as the scaffolding behaviors provided by the educational specialist. These skills and behaviors were also coded in one session, which took place 1 month after the intervention. Coded data of each group were submitted to prospective and retrospective lag sequential analysis. This informed of the sequential structure of planning skills performed by children in interaction with the educational specialist at the beginning and at the end of the intervention, as well as 1 month later after the intervention. The comparison of the patterns obtained in these three temporal moments allowed us to know the improvement of the two groups in the use of planning skills. Results showed that both groups improved their autonomous use of planning skills. However, SL1 group used successfully and autonomously complex planning skills, while SL2 group were unable to achieve this gain. SL2 group progressed in autonomy, but only using basic planning skills. Both groups can further improve their use of planning skills; therefore, the intervention should be adjusted to their characteristics and temporarily extended. These findings contribute to the, as yet, little studied field of intervention and assessment of planning skills in children with ASD using a mixed methods approach.
