Tablet-based interventions for individuals with ASD: Evidence of generalization and maintenance effects.
Tablet lessons for autism hold up over time, yet most studies leave out the maintenance plan—so write your own.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Hong et al. (2018) looked at 21 single-case experiments that used tablets with learners who have autism.
They asked two questions: Did the skills last after the tablet was gone, and did the skills show up in new places or with new people?
They scored each study with Tau-U, a way to measure how big the change was.
What they found
Skills taught on tablets stayed strong over time—maintenance effects were large.
Skills moved to new settings or people less often—generalization effects were only moderate.
Most papers, however, never said how long the gap was between teaching and the later check.
How this fits with other research
Hong et al. (2017) had already shown that tablet lessons work; the 2018 paper zooms in on whether those wins last.
Knight et al. (2013) once warned that tech-based academic studies were too weak to trust—Rea’s later, stricter review shows the field has grown up.
Neely et al. (2018) found the same hole in functional-communication training: lots of studies, but thin maintenance details.
Gandhi et al. (2022) looked at 103 early-autism studies and still saw sloppy maintenance labels—tablet research is not the only place with this problem.
Why it matters
You can feel good about using tablets to teach new skills, but do not assume the learning will stick or spread on its own.
Add clear follow-up probes to your program: mark the calendar, pick the settings, and note who is present.
When you read the next tablet study, check the methods section for gap length and probe count—if it is missing, ask the author before you copy the protocol.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a maintenance probe at two weeks and four weeks post-teaching, and write the exact date and setting in the treatment log.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite positive effects of and established empirical evidence for tablet-based interventions for individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), it is not known whether such findings can be applicable to maintenance and generalization effects of those interventions. AIMS: This systematic review evaluated peer-reviewed single-case experimental design (SCED) studies concerning evidence of generalization and maintenance effects of tablet-based interventions for individuals with ASD. METHODS: To evaluate the methodological rigor of the literature in terms of generalization and maintenance effects, the authors adopted four of the basic design standards developed by What Works Clearinghouse (WWC; Kratochwill et al., 2010/2014). In addition, the authors used Tau-U effect size measure and attempted to calculate effect sizes differentiated by the type of generalization and maintenance teaching strategies. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies assessed generalization and/or maintenance effects. In the first evaluation of evidence of generalization and maintenance effects, it was found that more than half of the studies included in this review collected interobserver agreement (IOA) on at least 20% of sessions across all generalization and maintenance conditions and met the minimum quality thresholds of IOA. Meanwhile, less than one third of the studies included more than three data points in each generalization and maintenance condition. With regard to maintenance of effects, about half of the reviewed studies did not report the latency to the maintenance measure, which may hamper the assessment of the clinical and practical significance of the effect of the tablet-based intervention. In the second evaluation, the omnibus Tau-U effect size for baseline to generalization comparisons resulted in a moderate effect. For the contrasts between intervention and generalization comparisons resulted in a small effect. The omnibus Tau-U effect size for baseline and maintenance comparisons resulted in a strong effect. For the contrasts between intervention to maintenance comparisons, the omnibus Tau-U effect size resulted in a small effect. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATION: Findings in this review suggest that efforts should be made to establish a system for appraising generalization and maintenance procedures in SCED studies. In addition, future studies should investigate if tablet-based interventions are truly effective in creating sustainable behavioral change in individuals with ASD.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2018 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2018.01.014