Association for Behavior Analysis International

For the past thirty years Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention (EIBI) has been implemented in Norway and other European countries. In most countries it has been a challenge to deliver EIBI according to suggested minimum standards. The most common challenges have been to have properly trained staff implement the intervention, to get parents involved, and to provide intensive intervention (a minimum of 20 hours per week). As a result of this, outcomes have generally been moderate. However, outcomes of EIBI have been much better than “treatment as usual”. We will present two-year outcome data from a group of 30 children that were provided 10 hours a week and a group of 30 children that were provided 20 hours a week. We will also present data from another site were user satisfaction was evaluated in a reversal design across seven cases that received video-based supervision.

BCBAs, supervisors in EIBI programs.

We have developed a quality standard based on the logic of the Periodic Service Review to evaluate and improve quality of individual EIBI programs. The programs are provided through in the two largest cities in Norway, Bergen and Oslo. Based on the core elements of EIBI we have made a 36-item checklist that we consider to represent an optimal EIBI program. Some of the items are given a higher weight (such as intensity of intervention and therapist training). The standards have measurable targets (done/not done) for all involved parties (supervisors, therapists, parents, community staff). We report quality data from 60 individual programs collected over a two year period and discuss what we have found to be the most common challenges we face in providing EIBI of high quality.

We compared the use videoconference with on site supervision of EIBI cases in a reversal design. Supervision was provided either on site or using video conference every second week. Questionnaires were developed to evaluate to what degree videoconference influenced the perceived quality of supervision. The questionnaires consisted of 12 items that were scored on Likert scales and measured program supervision, registrations/data collection, preparedness, and technical quality. Both the supervisor and the supervisees evaluated their experiences across the supervision modes. We discuss our findings in terms of the perceived quality of supervision, potential for saving travel time saved and implications for caseload capacity.