Autism assessment in the schools: A review of rating scales and observation systems.

School psychologists are tasked with assessing students with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). While not used alone, ASD measures can help practitioners make informed decisions regarding special education eligibility. The purpose of this paper is to review the psychometric strengths and weaknesses of the following measures: Autism Diagnostic Interview, Revised (ADI-R); Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, Second Edition (ADOS-2); Autism Spectrum Rating Scale (ASRS); Childhood Autism Rating Scale, Second Edition (CARS-2); and Gilliam Autism Rating Scale, Third Edition (GARS-3)

INITIATING JOINT ATTENTION: SINGLE-CASE EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

Joint attention (JA) is the ability to coordinate attention between a social partner and the referent (object) in a social context. During JA episodes, individuals build social knowledge and experience with perspective-taking. JA is a pre-linguistic skill critical for social development, language acquisition, and cognitive development (Vaughan Van Hecke et al., 2007). The ability to adopt a common point of view or frame of reference leads to the development of social cognition (Mundy, 2017). JA behaviors emerge in the first six months of life and solidify around 18 months of typical development (Bakeman & Adamson, 1984). The single case study features the analysis of a behavioral-based intervention featuring differential reinforcement without extinction to teach three autistic children to initiate joint attention through remote training and supervision. Joint attention behavior as a socially valid goal and the intervention as a socially valid intervention is evaluated through the assent behavior of participants

Usage of restrictive or punishment-based procedures in Behavior Analytic treatment: A survey

The Ethics Code for Behavior Analysis (BACB, 2020) directs practitioners to implement restrictive or punishment-based procedures only after exhausting less-restrictive procedures prior to using more invasive procedures. Currently, there are no studies examining the frequency of usage of the restrictive or punishment-based procedures practice. To evaluate the extent to which restrictive or punishment-based procedures are used in practice, 534 ABA practitioners were surveyed on their current usage of these procedures. Results, discussion, and implications for practice are discussed