Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Autism
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mesibov, G. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Mesibov, G. B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Formal and Informal Measures on the Effectiveness of the TEACCH Programme

Gary B. Mesibov

University of North Carolina, USA

Demonstrating the effectiveness of a large and complex programme such as Division TEACCH is difficult. The problem is compounded by the organic basis of autism and the focus of Division TEACCH on lifelong adaptations, which do not lend themselves to superficial cures or clearly defined milestones. Several different measures have been used to address the evaluation questions: research studies on the effectiveness of specific techniques, outcome data, and anecdotal and statistical information about the impact of Division TEACCH. These measures have been collected and described in response to the many people who contact Division TEACCH inquiring how we know we are having a positive impact on people with autism and their families. The combination of empirical data and informal measures is included to provide a comprehensive perspective.

Key Words: autism • evaluation • intervention • structuredteaching • TEACCH

Autism, Vol. 1, No. 1, 25-35 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/1362361397011005
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Communication Disorders QuarterlyHome page
D. L. Brunner and H. Seung
Evaluation of the Efficacy of Communication-Based Treatments for Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Literature Review
Communication Disorders Quarterly, November 1, 2009; 31(1): 15 - 41.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
S. M. Myers, C. P. Johnson, and the Council on Children With Disabilities
Management of Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders
Pediatrics, November 1, 2007; 120(5): 1162 - 1182.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch Pediatr Adolesc MedHome page
W. J. Barbaresi, S. K. Katusic, and R. G. Voigt
Autism: A Review of the State of the Science for Pediatric Primary Health Care Clinicians.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, November 1, 2006; 160(11): 1167 - 1175.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 AutismHome page
P. Siaperas and J. Beadle-Brown
A case study of the use of a structured teaching approach in adults with autism in a residential home in Greece
Autism, July 1, 2006; 10(4): 330 - 343.
[Abstract] [PDF]