Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Autism Intervention Program (AIP) in Ontario has been in place providing intensive behavioural intervention (IBI) to children with autism spectrum disorder since 1999 (Perry et al., 2008). This IBI program involves teaching children using applied behaviour analytic (ABA) principles for 25-40 hours per week, in the family home or in an IBI centre. The use of ABA-based methods for teaching skills and decreasing problem behaviour to children with autism has the most evidence to date, and therefore remains in high demand by families within the province. The purpose of the current study was to examine parent perspectives about the Ontario Intensive Behavioural Intervention program for children with autism. A mixed methods design was used to investigate a sample (N=110) of parents who completed the Family Perspectives on IBI Questionnaire (FPIQ) and the Measure of Processes of Care (MPOC) rating scale. In addition, a small focus group (N = 3) was conducted with three parents who had completed the questionnaires. The study investigated parents' overall satisfaction of IBI, and variables that predicted satisfaction. The results of the study indicate that parents were satisfied with their child's outcomes, and they wanted IBI to extend longer, even across the lifespan in some instances. Families felt that the IBI program needed to be evaluated separately with respect to the funding body, and the clinical team. Parents were dissatisfied with the manner in which funding was delivered for the program, how assessment decisions about their children's IBI services were made, and the financial impact that IBI had for many of them. In terms of the clinical team, although some families were dissatisfied with the number and quality of therapists, or the number of meetings with their Supervising Therapist (ST), they were very satisfied with the close relationships they formed with their team, and the individualized clinical goals provided by some teams. An examination of the direct funded option (DFO) vs. the direct service option (DSO) found that the DFO families felt they had more control over their services, but they expressed more dissatisfaction overall.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".