A comparison of computer‐assisted and therapist‐led instruction for children with autism spectrum disorder

LeBlanc and team asked a simple question: can a computer teach kids with autism faster than a therapist? They ran an alternating-treatments design with three children. Some lessons came from a laptop program. The same skills were taught in traditional one-to-one style by a therapist.

Two of the three children hit mastery in fewer minutes with the computer format. The third child learned at the same speed in both setups. Attention and social validity scores, however, swung up and down across kids and formats. Efficiency won, but not for everyone.

Chang et al. (2014) ran a larger RCT and also saw computers beat sensorimotor drills for handwriting fluency. Together the studies form a small replication chain: computer delivery can outpace human-led lessons.

Jobin (2019) used the same alternating-treatments blueprint for kids with ASD and found that switching between DTT and PRT kept learning moving. LeBlanc echoes that message: if attention drops in one format, toggle to the other.

Boutros et al. (2011) looked at problem-solving in children with ID and saw no overall winner between computer and physical materials. Their mixed result lines up with LeBlanc’s third child—medium effects can cancel out when you average across learners.

Start each case with a quick probe: run one skill on the tablet and one with you. Track minutes to mastery for both. If the computer wins and attention stays steady, you just saved staff time. If the child looks away more or scores drop, flip back to therapist-led without guilt. Use the data, not the hype.