Evaluation of comprehensive treatment models for individuals with autism spectrum disorders.
Most autism CTMs are well-described but thin on proof—check newer meta-analyses before you buy in.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Hilton et al. (2010) looked at 30 big treatment packages for autism. These packages are called comprehensive treatment models, or CTMs.
The team asked: how well are these programs written down, and do we know if they work?
What they found
Most models had clear manuals and steps. Few had strong proof that they help kids.
The review warns: good description does not equal good outcome data.
How this fits with other research
Han et al. (2025) updated this picture. Their meta-analysis of 25 ABA-based CTMs gives real numbers: small gains in daily living, medium gains in language when hours are high.
Tiede et al. (2019) did the same for naturalistic models. They show small-to-medium boosts in play and social skills, something the 2010 paper could only describe in words.
Aznar et al. (2005) is an early example of what the review missed: one clear trial showing 25–40 h/week of one-to-one IBT beating eclectic classes.
Why it matters
Before you pick a packaged program, look past the shiny manual. Ask for effect sizes, not just a long description. If the model lacks data, probe the provider or choose one that has numbers behind it, like the high-intensity models in Han et al. (2025).
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Audit your current CTM: list the outcome studies with effect sizes; if none, request data or consider a switch.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Multiple dimensions of comprehensive treatment models (CTMs) for learners with autism were evaluated in this study. The purpose of the study was to provide evaluative information upon which service providers, family members, and researchers could make decisions about model adoption, selection for a family member, or future research. Thirty CTMs were identified, with the majority based on an applied behavior analysis framework, although a substantial minority followed a developmental or relationship-based model. As a group, CTMs were strongest in the operationalization of their models, although relatively weaker in measurement of implementation, and with notable exceptions, weak in evidence of efficacy.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2010 · doi:10.1007/s10803-009-0825-1