Efficacy of the ASAP Intervention for Preschoolers with ASD: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Burrows et al. (2018) ran a cluster-randomized trial in preschool classrooms. They tested the ASAP program, a team-training package for teachers and aides.

Kids with autism kept their usual day, but staff learned to set up play and social routines. Researchers then checked if the children talked, played, or engaged more.

On the main social and play tests, ASAP and control classes looked the same. The program did not lift core social-communication scores.

Yet kids in ASAP rooms showed more overall engagement and teachers reported less burnout. The win was classroom climate, not child skills.

Giesbers et al. (2020) also ran an RCT with autistic preschoolers. Their brief caregiver-coached program boosted joint attention and social communication four months later. Same design, same age, opposite child outcome.

The clash with Olsen et al. (2021) is even sharper. PEERS for Preschoolers, a high-dose parent program, kept social gains for years. ASAP’s low-intensity teacher consultation did not. The difference is dosage and who does the work.

Zitter et al. (2023) extends ASAP’s staff-training idea. They showed that when teachers hit high fidelity with PRT, kids actually learned more. ASAP never pushed fidelity this far, which may explain its flat child results.

If you coach preschool teams, don’t expect ASAP alone to move social scores. Use it as a burnout shield and engagement booster, then layer a proven parent or peer program for child gains. Track fidelity like Zitter et al. did—high fidelity is where the magic hides.