Enriched supervision to increase quality of early intensive behavioral intervention in autism: a pragmatic randomized controlled pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods to enhance the quality of delivered Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention (EIBI) for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have received surprisingly little attention in previous research. In a pragmatic randomized controlled pilot study, we studied the feasibility and effects of enriched supervision (using detailed video feedback) on EIBI quality compared to regular supervision only, over a period of 4–6 months. EIBI was conducted in 30 children with ASD by preschool staff, where 18 received enriched, and 12 regular supervisions. EIBI quality was evaluated using the York Measure of Quality of Intensive Behavioural Intervention. The enriched supervision was deemed feasible and compared to staff receiving regular supervision. Preschool staff who received enriched supervision improved on overall quality of EIBI delivery, as well as specifically regarding goal-directedness, organization and efficiency of the EIBI. Findings support the significance of adequate education and supervision of EIBI providers for intervention quality assurance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".