The role of treatment fidelity on outcomes during a randomized field trial of an autism intervention.
Fidelity, not program name, decides which classroom model works best for autistic students.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team ran a cluster-randomized trial in public-school autism classrooms. Half the rooms used the STAR program, half used Structured Teaching. They tracked how well teachers followed each manual and measured student progress.
Kids were early elementary age with autism. Observers scored fidelity on a 1-5 scale. The study lasted one school year.
What they found
There was no overall winner. STAR beat Structured Teaching only when fidelity was very low or very high. In the middle zone, Structured Teaching came out ahead.
In short, the best program switched depending on how closely teachers stuck to the script.
How this fits with other research
Eikeseth et al. (2002) already showed that four hours a day of school-based ABA beats eclectic mixes. Chiviacowsky et al. (2013) adds that the same dose can win or lose depending on fidelity.
Van Gaasbeek et al. (2026) pooled 29 studies and found large gains for early ABA in real clinics. Their meta-analysis did not split results by fidelity, so the 2013 data fill that gap.
Eldevik et al. (2006) warned that low-intensity ABA gives only small gains. The 2013 trial agrees: low-fidelity STAR still topped low-fidelity Structured Teaching, but both scored low on the scale.
Why it matters
Stop hunting for the "best" curriculum. Check fidelity first. If your staff can hit high levels, STAR is a safe bet. If they are still learning, Structured Teaching may give quicker wins. Either way, coach to the edges—avoid the muddy middle where results flip.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Rate last week’s sessions with the STAR or Structured Teaching fidelity sheet and adjust coaching where scores land in the mid-range.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This randomized field trial comparing Strategies for Teaching based on Autism Research and Structured Teaching enrolled educators in 33 kindergarten-through-second-grade autism support classrooms and 119 students, aged 5-8 years in the School District of Philadelphia. Students were assessed at the beginning and end of the academic year using the Differential Ability Scales. Program fidelity was measured through video coding and use of a checklist. Outcomes were assessed using linear regression with random effects for classroom and student. Average fidelity was 57% in Strategies for Teaching based on Autism Research classrooms and 48% in Structured Teaching classrooms. There was a 9.2-point (standard deviation = 9.6) increase in Differential Ability Scales score over the 8-month study period, but no main effect of program. There was a significant interaction between fidelity and group. In classrooms with either low or high program fidelity, students in Strategies for Teaching based on Autism Research experienced a greater gain in Differential Ability Scales score than students in Structured Teaching (11.2 vs. 5.5 points and 11.3 vs. 8.9 points, respectively). In classrooms with moderate fidelity, students in Structured Teaching experienced a greater gain than students in Strategies for Teaching based on Autism Research (10.1 vs. 4.4 points). The results suggest significant variability in implementation of evidence-based practices, even with supports, and also suggest the need to address challenging issues related to implementation measurement in community settings.
Autism : the international journal of research and practice, 2013 · doi:10.1177/1362361312473666