Provider Self-Reported Use and Usefulness of Intervention Strategies for Externalizing Behaviors in Youths with ASD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine predictors of implementation and perceived usefulness of four empirically supported strategies for treating externalizing behavior in youths with ASD. METHOD: Participants were 557 providers in the United States with experience treating externalizing behavior in youths with ASD. Generalized estimating equations were used to determine whether self-reported use and usefulness of four empirically supported intervention strategies (functional communication training, functional behavior analysis, visual tools/supports, token economy) were predicted by key provider characteristics: professional discipline, experience, and practice specialization (across three indices) in ASD. Post-hoc contrasts were performed to identify provider groups reporting the greatest use and usefulness of the four strategies. RESULTS: Strategies were most often used by providers with behavioral backgrounds, though perceived usefulness of strategies varied by providers' professional discipline. Compared to providers with more than 10 years of experience, less experienced providers endorsed the highest average use and usefulness of almost all strategies. Regarding ASD practice specialization, a lower volume of ASD cases, treating fewer youths with ASD over a 5-year period, and having a higher proportion of practice time working with youths with ASD reported were associated with greater use and usefulness of the strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Empirically supported strategies are widely used by and perceived as useful by providers who treat youths with ASD and co-occurring externalizing behaviors. Use and usefulness varies based on provider discipline, experience, and ASD practice specialization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".