From Clinic Room to Zoom: Delivery of an Evidence-Based, Parent-mediated Intervention in the Community Before and During the Pandemic

Graucher et al. (2022) compared two ways to run the RUBI parent-training group. One group met in the clinic. The other group met on Zoom. Both groups got the same six lessons and the same coach.

Parents of autistic children with disruptive behavior joined the study. The team watched how the kids acted before and after the classes. They did not flip a coin to pick the group; families chose the format that fit their life.

Both Zoom and in-person RUBI cut disruptive behavior. More than half of the children showed a clear, steady drop in tantrums, hitting, and non-compliance.

The size of the drop looked the same on screen and in the room. Parents in both groups said they felt more sure of what to do when trouble started.

Breider et al. (2024) ran a stronger test. They flipped a coin to put families in face-to-face, blended, or wait-list groups. Face-to-face won big; blended did no better than wait-list. Their coin-flip design beats the target’s pick-your-group plan, so we trust the 2024 answer more.

Martin et al. (2023) also used Zoom and saw the same good drop in problem behavior. They had no control group, just like the target, so the two studies echo each other.

Burrell et al. (2025) pooled nine gold-standard trials. The math says parent training really does cut parent-rated disruptive behavior. The target study lands inside that bigger picture.

Put together, the story is: live coaching works, Zoom can work, but the strongest proof still comes from face-to-face when it is done in a coin-flip trial.

You can keep RUBI in your toolbox even when families can’t reach the clinic. If a parent needs Zoom, go ahead—just track the data so you know it is helping. If they can come in person and you want the strongest shot, choose face-to-face. Either way, teach the skills the same: clear rules, praise, and calm follow-through.