In her occupational therapy doctoral project, the author has developed the STAR for School program, and its associated evaluation research protocol, as an outgrowth of the well-established STAR Frame of Reference. This project was designed to expand occupational therapy intervention for children with sensory integration and processing challenges, who often exhibit significant occupational participation and performance difficulties, from the clinic to the school setting. The author’s aims were to provide school-based occupational therapy practitioners with a clear path for service provision, coupled with a method for measuring outcomes focused on occupational engagement to establish the intervention’s effectiveness. This work is intended to fill existing gaps in the literature on adapting the clinic model of sensory integration intervention to the schools and aligning school-based programs with the laws and guidelines inherent in school system operations. By expanding the STAR Frame of Reference to this context, the school-based occupational therapy practitioner is able to draw from this approach and upon strategies from the sensory, regulation, and relationship domains when providing support to their students. Highlighted in this author’s presentation are the potential role that short-term direct pull-out intervention can play and implications for the impact of STAR for School on future programming in the school setting. The author has also helped to develop a continuing education course as a means to build the knowledge and skills needed as a basis for implementing STAR for School.

Evidence-based interventions address a specific context, and because of this narrowed specificity, there may not be sufficient research to determine whether it will work in a specific context or with a specific population of students. This is a limitation of the empirically supported interventions in the field of special education. Compared to other fields (e.g., health care), research in the field of special education is still emerging. Some areas are researched far more than others. As an example, this issue is focused specifically on arts and education. Although many would argue this is an important topic that should be addressed in schools and a content area students with disabilities should have access to, there is limited research in this area. On the other hand, other academic interventions to support students with disabilities, such as reading strategies, are well researched [...]

No description available.

A survey was sent to classroom teachers in Central Florida educating students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to investigate: 1) intervention practices currently used in the classroom for students with ASD; 2) if the interventions being used are evidence-based, and; 3) if there a difference in use of evidence-based interventions between teachers with the Florida Autism Endorsement and teachers without the Endorsement. A nonprobability purposive study was conducted via an email-based survey. The survey was designed using the tailored design method and was created in Qualtrics.com, an online survey software program. The survey was divided into three major sections: an intervention section which included a variety of evidence and non-evidenced-based practices drawn from the current research literature; a section focused on how teachers select the interventions they use in their classrooms; and, a demographic section. The survey was sent via email to classroom teachers registered with University of Central Florida Center for Autism and Related Disabilities. Participant inclusion criteria included: 1) currently a classroom teacher in a Central Florida, and 2) at least one student with ASD in the classroom. Forty surveys were completed for a ten percent response rate. Results indicated that a variety of evidence- based and non-evidence-based interventions were being used in classrooms. The top three reported interventions were Visual Supports (95 %), Computer Program Applications (93%), and Social Stories (73 %). Based on current empirical evidence, these top three interventions have insufficient evidence regarding their efficacy for use with students with ASD. In addition, two of the interventions reported to be used have a negative evidence base suggesting they may be harmful for some students with ASD. There were no significant differences between teachers with the Florida ASD Endorsement and teachers without

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.