2. Early Childhood Education Journal
1 3
preservice teachers, can support preservice teachers’ knowl-
edge and awareness of evidence-based practices. However,
teachers need ongoing, in-context support, in addition to
training, to implement interventions effectively with chil-
dren (Joyce and Showers 2002) and to see impacts in child
outcomes (Ramey et al. 2011).
Performance feedback is effective in supporting pre and
in-service teachers to implement effective practices (Cor-
nelius and Nagro 2014). For example, Neuman and Cun-
ningham (2009) found that while coursework increased
teachers’ knowledge of effective literacy practices, course-
work with coaching on the effective practices increased both
knowledge and use of the practices in context. Similarly,
Hamre et al. (2010) concluded that coursework with feed-
back increases teachers’ use of evidence based practices
in language and literacy instruction. However, system-
atic focused feedback may not be consistently provided to
teacher candidates (Grossman et al. 2009). Supervisors and
faculty in preservice teacher programs need cost effective
ways to support development of skills and assess skills in
the context of budgetary/personnel constraints (Joseph and
Brennan 2013). Current literature indicates that providing
opportunities to reflect on practices through video-based
observation and peer coaching may support use of effective
practices (Lu 2010).
Peer Feedback
Observing peers may help preservice teachers analyze their
own use of effective practice, supporting further professional
development (Anderson et al. 2005). Systematic feedback
has been provided by teacher peers in a number of stud-
ies. For example, Joseph and Brennan (2013) created peer
groups of preservice teachers. Each teacher compiled a video
demonstrating their use of adult–child interaction practices
and then peers reviewed their own and others video and pro-
vided feedback on the use of strategies. Similarly, Kennedy
and Lees (2016) implemented video-based peer coaching
with early childhood preservice teachers to support use of
effective adult–child interactions with positive effects on
outcome measures of these practices. In a review of peer
coaching studies focused on preservice teachers, Lu (2010)
found that there were positive outcomes for peers’ use of
effective practices and professionalism. However, peers may
not have the skills to provide effective feedback (Kurtts and
Levin 2000). Facilitated feedback from peers may support
development of skills in a more efficient way than individual
feedback by university or field experience staff.
An additional benefit of peer feedback is the opportunity
to collaborate with colleagues. Teachers need collaborative
skills (Harvey et al. 2010; Leko et al. 2015). Peer group
review and discussion of teaching practices can support a
“collective dialogue and reflection on action” which teach-
ers often do not have opportunities to do (Cherrington and
Loveridge 2014). Providing opportunities to reflect with and
provide feedback to peers can facilitate the teaming skills
necessary for early childhood teachers.
Video‑Based Reflection
In addition to feedback, reflection by practitioners on their
use of effective practice is an important component of pre-
paring intentional teachers. The ability to effectively reflect
on practice has been linked to positive child outcomes (Etsc-
heidt et al. 2012; Kersting et al. 2010). Recent studies have
focused on collaborative reflection with positive effects
(Cherrington and Loveridge 2014).
Research supports the use of video reflection to increase
skill development. Videos of practitioners have been effec-
tively used to promote reflection on effective practices
(Blomberg et al. 2014) and the use of self-observation
through video has resulted in statistically significant changes
in effective practices (Fukkink et al. 2011). In a 2009 study,
Fukkink and Tavecchio increased the caregiving practice
use by inservice teachers by selecting video clips of correct
use of the caregiving practices. Video review of their own
practice and the impacts on children supports practitioners
to become more reflective (Cherrington and Loveridge 2014;
Moyles et al. 2002).
Systematic Instruction
Both the National Association for the Education of Young
Children (NAEYC) and the Council for Exceptional Chil-
dren (CEC) Division for Early Childhood (DEC) have devel-
oped recommended practices for early childhood teachers
and early childhood special education teachers respectively.
The NAEYC Developmentally Appropriate Practices posi-
tion statement (NAEYC 2009) and the DEC Recommended
Practices (DEC 2014) include guidance recommending
that teachers provide support and instruction to individual
children to support their acquisition of skills. For example,
NAEYC DAP Guideline G2 indicates that “Teachers know
how and when to scaffold children’s learning—that is, pro-
viding just enough assistance to enable each child to perform
at a skill level just beyond what the child can do on his or her
own, then gradually reducing the support as the child begins
to master the skill” (NAEYC 2009, p. 19). Similarly, DEC
Recommended practice 6 in the topic area of Instruction
states “Practitioners use systematic instructional strategies
with fidelity to teach skills and to promote child engagement
and learning.” Time delay is one systematic instructional
3. Early Childhood Education Journal
1 3
strategy that has been used to support young children’s
acquisition of skills.
To implement the time delay procedure, the teacher iden-
tifies a prompt that is likely to support the child to provide
the correct response, also known as the controlling prompt.
For example, the controlling prompt might be pointing to the
correct response or verbally modeling (“Say, ‘My turn’”).
During the time delay procedure, to begin the teacher pro-
vides a task direction (“Show me the train”) and immediately
provides the controlling prompt (teacher points to the train
picture). If the child responds correctly, reinforcement (e.g.,
verbal praise, token) is provided, and if the child responds
incorrectly, another opportunity or an error correction is pro-
vided. [For further description of time delay procedures see
Collins (2012), pp. 53–68] After a predetermined number of
sessions of immediately providing the controlling prompt,
the teacher inserts a delay, typically between 1 and 3 s, after
the task direction and before the controlling prompt. Con-
stant time delay (CTD) is a type of time delay procedure
in which only two time delay intervals are used, a 0 s (i.e.,
immediately providing the controlling prompt) and, typi-
cally, a 3 s delay. Time delay is a systematic instructional
strategy that has been effective in supporting a variety of
skills and children with varying needs (Browder et al. 2009;
Wong et al. 2015). See Fig. 1 for an illustration of the time
delay procedures.
Current Case Study
Preservice teachers need performance feedback on their
use of skills, but many teacher preparation programs are
not set up to provide consistent feedback during field
placements. One way to do this is to build into the course
work opportunities for students to share their experience
with the use of effective practices, and provide feedback
and support reflection in peer groups facilitated by univer-
sity professors. This structure can build skilled, intentional
teachers. This case study provides one model of promoting
reflection and providing feedback in a group of early child-
hood/early childhood special education preservice teach-
ers on implementation of CTD procedures. This model
adds to the literature by building on effective components
of professional development and adult learning through
using action planning in conjunction with teaching, dem-
onstration, and practice during course sessions and self-
reflection and peer group feedback to support implementa-
tion of the developed action plans. The research question
guiding the case study was: Is training, practice, and group
reflection and feedback effective in supporting preservice
teachers’ use of CTD?
Give a task direction
(Teacher says, "Show me the train")
Deliver controlling
prompt (Teacher
points to the train.)
Wait 3 seconds
Child responds correctly
(Child points to the picture
of a train.)
Reinforce correct response
(Teacher says, "You found
the train!" and gives the
child a high five.
Child responds incorrectly
(Child points to the
picture of a firetruck.)
Error correction
(Teachers points to the train
and says, "This is the train"."
0s delay trial
Give a task direction
(Teacher says, "Show me the train")
Wait 3 seconds
Child responds
correctly
(Child points to
the picture of a
train.)
Reinforce correct
response
(Teacher says,
"You found the
train!" and gives
the child a high
five.
Child does not
respond
Provide controlling
prompt
(Teacher points to the
train)
Child responds
incorrectly
(Child points to
the picture of a
firetruck.)
Error
correction
(Teachers
points to the
train and
says, "This is
the train"."
3s delay trial
Fig. 1 CTD trial examples
4. Early Childhood Education Journal
1 3
Methods
Participants
Eleven students in an initial certification program par-
ticipated. Nine students were undergraduates, while two
were in an alternative master’s program. All students
were female and in programs which lead to obtain dual
teacher certification in early childhood and early childhood
special education at a public university in a southeastern
state. The course in which this study took place occurred
in the semester prior to student teaching. Students were
placed in prekindergarten through third grade classrooms
in public schools and working with children with identi-
fied disabilities.
Procedures
Prior to implementation of the case study, university Inter-
nal Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained. During a
3 h course session, participants were trained in the CTD
procedure through in class lecture, video examples, and
partnered practice. After the training, participants devel-
oped an individual action plan, in the form of a lesson
plan, to implement the strategy with a child in their practi-
cum placement. Participants planned for implementing
both 0 s and 3 s sessions with the same set of behaviors.
Behaviors that participants were teaching included sight
words, vocabulary, and math facts.
After participating in training, practice, and planning,
participants implemented their lessons in their assigned field
placement. Participants videotaped themselves implement-
ing the CTD lesson plan using their personal devices (e.g.,
cell phone, IPad). Participants were then instructed to view
the video and reflect on their use of the CTD strategy and
impacts on the learner. Participants then wrote and submit-
ted a one page reflection. For the reflection, students were
asked to respond to the questions: (1) Did the student learn
the skill you were teaching and how do you know? (2) What
were your strengths in using this strategy? (3) What might
you need to improve? (4) How could you improve your use
of the strategy? (5) What would you do differently if you
continued to teach this skill to the student? Participants
completed these activities within 2 weeks and submitted the
video, lesson plan, and reflection prior to the group meeting.
For the group reflection and feedback portion of the
case study, participants were divided into groups of five
or six. Groups met after the implementation of the lesson
plan to share videos, reflect on their implementation, and
provide feedback to each other on the implementation of
the strategy. Group meetings were scheduled for 1 h.
Prior to the group meeting, participants brainstormed
norms for the group sessions. These norms were compiled
into a list and shared at the beginning of the group session
to contextualize the group meetings as opportunities to
reflect and provide feedback in a non-judgemental, sup-
portive environment. During group meetings, each partici-
pant (1) verbally reflected on their implementation of the
strategy, (2) identified any specific actions or behaviors she
would like group participants to observe, and (3) shared
their video. After each video, group members reflected on
the participant’s use of the strategy and provided general
feedback and any requested or specific feedback. The first
author facilitated discussion by providing example com-
ments and asking group members for their observations.
After the group meeting, participants once again wrote
a plan for implementing CTD with a student, implemented
the plan and recorded their implementation of the second
CTD lesson plan. Participants uploaded the second video to
a secure site for the author to review.
Data Collection
Fidelity to CTD procedures was assessed via video analysis
of the participants’ second video which was recorded after
the group meeting. Each trial of the CTD procedure was
rated on the use of correct procedures. For 0 s trials, each
trial was assessed for (1) administering the task direction,
(2) immediately delivering the controlling prompt, (3) wait-
ing for child response, and (4) providing reinforcement for
correct response or error correction for incorrect response.
For 3 s trials, each trial was assessed for (1) administering
the task direction, (2) waiting for the child’s response, and
(3) providing reinforcement for the correct response, the
controlling prompt if no response, or error correction for
incorrect response.
For each videotaped session, the number of trials com-
pleted was recorded. For both 0 s and 3 s trials, percent
correct was calculated for each trial and averaged across all
trials for the fidelity percentage for the session.
Results
Participants completed an average of 7.1 trials per 0 s delay
session (range: 4–11) and an average of 7.3 trials per 3 s
delay sessions (range: 4–11). For the 0 s delay procedure,
the average fidelity score across participants was 92.3%
(range 63.5–100%). Four participants averaged 100% fidelity
across all trials for 0 s delay and only one participant aver-
aged below 80%. See Table 1 for individual participant data
from 0 s delay trials. For 3 s delay trials, the average fidelity
was 92.3% (range 66.7–100%). Seven participants averaged
100% fidelity and three participants averaged below 80%
5. Early Childhood Education Journal
1 3
fidelity. See Table 2 for individual participant data from 3 s
delay trials.
Participant data reveals patterns in fidelity across the
delay intervals. Four participants (Participants 4, 9, 10, and
11) implemented both 0 s and 3 s delay trials with 100%
fidelity. Three additional participants implemented the 3 s
delay trials with 100% fidelity and all three implemented the
0 s delay trials with fidelity above 80% (Participants 1, 3,
and 8; range: 81–98%). Of the three participants that scored
below 80% fidelity on the 3 s trials (range: 67–79%), two
implemented the 0 s trials with fidelity above 80% (Partici-
pants 2 and 5), while the third did not demonstrate fidelity
to the 0 s trials (Participant 7; M = 67%).
Discussion
Use of a systematic instructional procedure with fidelity
in a classroom setting was achieved by preservice teachers
after a combination of training, practice, self-reflection,
and group feedback. This case study adds to the literature
on preservice teacher education by providing an example
of peer feedback and video reflection as a part of a preser-
vice teacher education program for early childhood/early
childhood special education teachers.
Preservice teacher programs may not adequately pre-
pare teachers to implement EBPs with fidelity (Begeny
and Martens 2006). Performance feedback has been effec-
tive in supporting use of EBPs by preservice and inser-
vice teachers (Cornelius and Nagro 2014). This model
of training and practice, implementation in context, self-
reflection, and peer group feedback is one way to provide
performance feedback to preservice teachers in the context
of a program course. Although the group sessions did take
time from the course instructional time, opportunities for
feedback are more effective than the “sit and get” types
of instruction that are often used in undergraduate and
graduate courses. Additionally, by incorporating the video
sharing into the course, the professor was able to observe
the preservice teachers’ use of EBPs without the time
involved in observing on-site. In a university which has
few resources to have observations of preservice teachers
in field placements prior to student teaching, this provides
an opportunity that was not heretofore available.
One concern with this process is the time to focus on
one EBP. However, there is a call to identify EBPs or “core
practices” that are necessary for teachers to obtain during
preservice education (McDonald et al. 2013), Using these
“core practices” in context with fidelity is an important
focus for preservice training. To streamline this process,
programs should identify a “must have” list of EBPs for
teachers completing the program. Often the feedback that
is received during field placement observations is general
and not aligned with guidelines for performance feedback
that increases use of EBPs (Scheeler et al. 2004). Addi-
tionally, effective practices are so widely defined and not
agreed upon that consistency needs to be established either
at the university or field of study level. If we want students
to use practices with fidelity, we need to define and iden-
tify these practices, provide specific feedback for use of
the practices in context, and assess use of these practices
or we will not prepare preservice teachers for the jobs they
will be entering.
In addition to the benefits for the faculty to observe
teaching behaviors prior to student teaching, the group
coaching and feedback provided an opportunity for stu-
dents to collaborate and discuss as colleagues the use of
Table 1 Participant fidelity to 0 s time delay procedures
N number of trials the teacher completed with the student, M mean
fidelity %age across trials, Range range of fidelity %age across trials
0 s Delay trials
Participant N Fidelity
M (%) Range (%)
1 5 90 75–100
2 11 95 75–100
3 4 81 75–100
4 5 100 100–100
5 9 92 75–100
6 11 98 75–100
7 4 63 50–100
8 10 98 75–100
9 6 100 100–100
10 9 100 100–100
11 4 100 100–100
Table 2 Participant fidelity to 3 s time delay procedures
N number of trials the teacher completed with the student, M mean
fidelity %age across trials, Range range of fidelity %age across trials
3 s Delay trials
Participant N Fidelity
M (%) Range (%)
1 5 100 100–100
2 11 79 67–100
3 10 100 100–100
4 5 100 100–100
5 9 67 67–67
6 7 95 67–100
7 4 75 67–100
8 10 100 100–100
9 6 100 100–100
10 9 100 100–100
11 4 100 100–100
6. Early Childhood Education Journal
1 3
practices including successes and challenges. Collabora-
tion is a necessary skill for early childhood teachers who
often work in tandem with paraprofessionals and/or related
services professionals (Leko et al. 2015).
This training, planning, observation, and reflection and
feedback cycle was based on the Practice-Based Coaching
(PBC) model of coaching, which has been used exten-
sively in early childhood contexts (Snyder et al. 2015).
PBC includes components of developing a targeted goal
and action plan focused on an effective practice (i.e., pre-
service teachers’ lesson plans), a focused observation
based on the goal/action plan (i.e., preservice teachers’
videotaped observation of implementing the lesson),
reflection and feedback (i.e., preservice teachers’ written
self-reflection and group feedback after video viewing).
All of these coaching components are based in a collabo-
rative partnership, which in this case was strengthened by
the use of group norms. As coaching becomes more preva-
lent in educational settings (van Nieuwerburgh 2012), pro-
viding opportunities for preservice teachers to experience
coaching during their education may prepare them better
for ongoing professional development when they are in
the classroom.
Limitations
As a preliminary case study, there are a number of limita-
tions when interpreting the outcomes of the model. With-
out comparison data on use of effective practices prior to
training, reflection, and group feedback, the results can-
not be directly attributed to the intervention. Additionally,
with no data collected after training and prior to group
feedback, the differential effects of the training and the
reflection and feedback on the use of practices cannot be
evaluated. Future research should include experimen-
tal studies of the effects of the model and the different
components of the model (e.g., training, reflection, group
feedback) to determine the most effective package for
supporting use of EBPs by preservice teacher in the most
efficient way.
Teacher education can no longer be theory and broad
strokes. Teacher educators need to identify EBPs and train
teachers to use these core practices to ensure that students
are receiving education that meets their individual needs.
This case study provides a preliminary example of one way
to use a coaching model to support use of a practice that has
been identified as effective in increasing young children’s
learning. Identifying specific practices that teachers need
to implement with fidelity and providing support for those
practices will better prepare teachers to be successful as they
enter the classroom.
References
Anderson, N. A., Barksdale, M. A., & Hite, C. E. (2005). Preservice
teachers’ observations of cooperating teachers and peers while
participating in an early field experience. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 32(4), 97.
Barton, E. E., & Smith, B. J. (2015). Advancing high-quality preschool
inclusion: a discussion and recommendations for the field. Topics
in Early Childhood Special Education, 35(2), 69–78.
Begeny, J. C., & Martens, B. K. (2006). Assessing pre-service teachers’
training in empirically-validated behavioral instruction practices.
School Psychology Quarterly, 21(3), 262.
Blomberg, G., Sherin, M. G., Renkl, A., Glogger, I., & Seidel, T.
(2014). Understanding video as a tool for teacher education: Inves-
tigating instructional strategies to promote reflection. Instruc-
tional Science, 42(3), 443–463.
Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Spooner, F., Mims, P. J., & Baker,
J. N. (2009). Using time delay to teach literacy to students with
severe developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75(3),
343–364.
Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., Kiely, M. T., & Danielson, L. C.
(2010). Special education teacher quality and preparation: Expos-
ing foundations, constructing a new model. Exceptional Children,
76(3), 357–377.
Buysse, V., & Hollingsworth, H. L. (2009). Program quality and early
childhood inclusion: recommendations for professional devel-
opment. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29(2),
119–128.
Chang, F., Early, D. M., & Winton, P. J. (2005). Early childhood teacher
preparation in special education at 2-and 4-year institutions of
higher education. Journal of Early Intervention, 27(2), 110–124.
Cherrington, S., & Loveridge, J. (2014). Using video to promote early
childhood teachers’ thinking and reflection. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 41, 42–51.
Collins, B. C. (2012). Systematic instruction for students with moderate
and severe disabilities. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Cornelius, K. E., & Nagro, S. A. (2014). Evaluating the evidence base
of performance feedback in preservice special education teacher
training. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37(2),
133–146.
Division for Early Childhood. (2014). DEC recommended practices
in early intervention/early childhood special education 2014.
Retrieved from http://www.dec-sped.org/recommendedpractices.
Epstein, A. S. (2007). The intentional teacher. Washington, DC:
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Etscheidt, S., Curran, C. M., & Sawyer, C. M. (2012). Promoting reflec-
tion in teacher preparation programs: A multilevel model. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 35(1), 7–26.
Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2015). Implementa-
tion science. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behav-
ioral Sciences, 11, 695–702.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace,
F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature.
Tampa: University of South Florida. Retrieved from http://www.
fpg.unc.edu/~nirn/resources/publications/Monograph/pdf/Monog
raph_full.pdf.
Fukkink, R. G., Trienekens, N., & Kramer, L. J. (2011). Video feedback
in education and training: Putting learning in the picture. Educa-
tional Psychology Review, 23(1), 45–63.
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining
teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273–289.
Hanline, M. F. (2010). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of field expe-
riences in inclusive preschool settings: Implications for person-
nel preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education: The
7. Early Childhood Education Journal
1 3
Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for
Exceptional Children, 33(4), 335–351.
Hamre, B. K., Justice, L. M., Pianta, R. C., Kilday, C., Sweeney, B.,
Downer, J. T., et al. (2010). Implementation fidelity of MyTeach-
ingPartner literacy and language activities: Association with
preschoolers’ language and literacy growth. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 25(3), 329–347.
Harvey, M. W., Yssel, N., Bauserman, A. D., & Merbler, J. B. (2010).
Preservice teacher preparation for inclusion: An exploration of
higher education teacher-training institutions. Remedial and Spe-
cial Education, 31(1), 24–33.
Joseph, G. E., & Brennan, C. (2013). Framing quality: annotated video-
based portfolios of classroom practice by pre-service teachers.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(6), 423–430.
Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff
development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Kennedy, A. S., & Lees, A. T. (2016). Preparing undergraduate pre-
service teachers through direct and video-based performance feed-
back and tiered supports in Early Head Start. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 44(4), 369–379.
Kersting, N. B., Givvin, K. B., Sotelo, F. L., & Stigler, J. W. (2010).
Teachers’ analyses of classroom video predict student learning of
mathematics: Further explorations of a novel measure of teacher
knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 172–181. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347875.
Kurtts, S. A., & Levin, B. B. (2000). Using peer coaching with preser-
vice teachers to develop reflective practice and collegial support.
Teaching Education, 11(3), 297–310.
Leko, M. M., Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., & Kiely, M. T. (2015).
Envisioning the future of special education personnel prepara-
tion in a standards-based era. Exceptional Children, 82(1), 25–43.
Lu, H. L. (2010). Research on peer coaching in preservice teacher
education—A review of literature. Teaching and Teacher Educa-
tion, 26(4), 748–753.
McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core prac-
tices and pedagogies of teacher education: A call for a common
language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education,
64(5), 378–386.
Moyles, J., Adams, S., & Musgrove, A. (2002). Using reflective
dialogues as a tool for engaging with challenges and defining
effective pedagogy. Early Childhood Development and Care,
172(5), 463–478.
Neuman, S. B., & Cunningham, L. (2009). The impact of professional
development and coaching on early language and literacy instruc-
tional practices. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2),
532–566.
Odom, S. L. (2008). The tie that binds. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 29(1), 53-61.
Ramey, S. L., Crowell, N. A., Ramey, C. T., Grace, C., Timraz, N.,
& Davis, L. E. (2011). The dosage of professional development
for early childhood professionals: How the amount and density
of professional development may influence its effectiveness. In
J. A. Sutterby (Ed.), The early childhood educator professional
development grant: Research and practice (pp. 11–32). Bradford:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Scheeler, M. C., Ruhl, K. L., & McAfee, J. K. (2004). Providing per-
formance feedback to teachers: A review. Teacher education and
special education, 27(4), 396–407.
Sheridan, S. M., Edwards, C. P., Marvin, C. A., & Knoche, L. L.
(2009). Professional development in early childhood programs:
process issues and research needs. Early Education and Develop-
ment, 20(3), 377–401.
Snyder, P. A., Hemmeter, M. L., & Fox, L. (2015). Supporting imple-
mentation of evidence-based practices through practice-based
coaching. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 35(3),
133–143.
van Nieuwerburgh, C. (2012). Coaching in education. London: Rout-
ledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429473036.
Wong, C., Odom, S. L., Hume, K. A., Cox, A. W., Fettig, A., Kucharc-
zyk, S., et al. (2015). Evidence-based practices for children, youth,
and young adults with autism spectrum disorder: A comprehen-
sive review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
45(7), 1951–1966.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
