Search

There is no agreement about the measure to quantify the intellectual/developmental level in children with the dual disability of intellectual disability and autism. Therefore, we studied the psychometric properties and utility of Psycho-Educational Profile-Revised (PEP-R) as a developmental test in this population. We identified I 16 children with dual disability from the day care and inpatient database of a specialised Autism Clinic. Scale and domain level scores of PEP-R were collected and analyzed. We examined the internal consistency, domain-total correlation of PEP-R and concurrent validity of PEP-R against Gesell's Developmental Schedule, inter-rater and test-retest reliability and utility of PEP-R among children with dual disability in different ages, functional level and severity of autism. Besides the adequate face and content validity, PEP-R demonstrates a good internal consistency (Cronbach's a ranging from 0.91 to 0.93) and domain-total correlation (ranging from 0.75 to 0.90). The inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC = 0.96) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.87) for PEP-R is good. There is moderate-to-high concurrent validity with GDS (r ranging from 0.61 to 0.82; all Ps = 0.001). The utility of PEP-R as a developmental measure was good with infants, toddlers, pre-school and primary school children. The ability of PEP-R to measure the developmental age was good, irrespective of the severity of autism but was better with high-functioning children. The PEP-R as an intellectual/developmental test has strong psychometric properties in children with dual disability. It could be used in children with different age groups and severity of autism. PEP-R should be used with caution as a developmental test in children with dual disability who are low functioning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Most children with autism do not receive early intervention, unless parents are trained, in countries with low child mental health resources. To maximize the existing resource, we evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of an intensive, parent mediated, multi-component, early intervention for autism in India. Methods: Data of 77 children with an ICD-10 diagnosis of autism who completed a 12- week, five days a week, intervention program and regular practice at home was collected from the database of a teaching hospital. Intervention components included the standard intervention protocol, the Psycho-Educational Profile intervention (PEP-R) and the Carolina Curriculum for Infants and Toddlers with Special Needs. Pre and postintervention PEP-R rating of parents were used to evaluate the intervention outcome. Appropriate bivariate, multivariate and resampling techniques were used to evaluate the intervention effectiveness. Results: The effect size (ES) for the intervention was moderate to large for the PEP-R developmental age as well as perception, fine motor, gross motor, eye-hand coordination,cognitive performance and cognitive verbal domain among children with mild to moderate (ES ranged from 0.70 to 0.88) and severe autism (ES ranged from 0.73 to 0.87). There was no difference in the intervention effect between the groups (ES ranged from 0.004 to 0.30). The effectiveness of the intervention continued after controlling the confounding effect of baseline developmental quotient, developmental age and adaptive skills. Conclusion: It is feasible to provide an effective parent mediated early intervention for mild to severe autism in countries where parents are the cornerstone in childhood disability care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]