Assessing the social validity of telehealth‐based applied behavior analysis services for autism spectrum disorder

Nohelty et al. (2023) asked caregivers to rate telehealth ABA services. They used an online survey. Parents answered questions about quality of life and how acceptable the service felt.

The team wanted to know if practical barriers like bad internet, lack of childcare, or work hours changed satisfaction scores.

Families gave telehealth ABA thumbs-up. Average scores ranged from 3.31 to 4.44 on a 5-point scale. Caregivers liked the service even when insurance type varied.

Tech trouble, childcare needs, and job conflicts dragged scores down. Money source did not matter.

Van der Donck et al. (2023) extends these happy ratings by showing real skill gains. Their caregivers hit 95% fidelity and 85% of kids met individual goals. The two studies fit together: parents like telehealth and kids benefit when staff coach well.

Yi et al. (2021) seems to contradict the warm feelings. That team found low provider fidelity inside public early-intervention systems. The gap makes sense: Nohelty asked families how they felt, while Yi watched staff and scored their coaching moves. Families can love a service even when providers still need better training.

Fahmie et al. (2013) is the grandparent here. Their tiny pilot first hinted telehealth parent training could work. Ten years later, Nohelty confirms large-scale social validity.

Ferguson et al. (2022) adds another brick. They showed telehealth parent coaching boosts child mand, tact, and intraverbal skills. Together the papers build a wall of evidence: telehealth ABA pleases families and teaches kids when done right.

You can now tell funders and families that telehealth ABA is socially valid. Still, screen for tech, childcare, and work barriers before the first session. Fixing these up front keeps satisfaction high and dropout low. Use the survey items as a quick intake checklist during your initial call.