Effectiveness of Classroom Pivotal Response Teaching: A Pilot Study

Background: Classroom Pivotal Response Teaching (CPRT) is a behavioral intervention for students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) that was adapted from Pivotal Response Training through an iterative process of collaboration between researchers, teachers, and school administrators. Components of PRT were adapted for CPRT based on teachers’ observed difficulty using the components in the classroom and teachers opinions on the benefits and barriers to using the approach (see Stahmer et al., in press). Resources for implementation (e.g., data sheets, training materials, case examples) were created based on teacher feedback on areas of need. CPRT is a manualized intervention for autism that is specific to school settings.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to provide a preliminary examination of the effectiveness of CPRT for students ages 3-8. Goals included determining if teachers could learn and utilize CPRT in the classroom with fidelity and evaluating whether teachers’ implementation of CPRT results in student improvement on standardized communication measures.

Methods: A multiple-baseline across participants design was utilized. Twenty teachers participated in a 3 to 6 observation baseline with bi-weekly observations of teaching techniques during regular classroom activities. Teachers then participated in a 6-week training workshop in CPRT, which included lecture, video examples, hands-on practice, and classroom coaching. Observations of teacher implementation of CPRT during classroom activities occurred throughout the baseline and training periods. Each teacher identified one to two target students with autism in her/his classroom. Target students were assessed at baseline on standardized communication measures and to confirm autism diagnosis.  Student communication and engagement were assessed throughout baseline and training. Follow-up observations of teacher implementation and student outcomes occurred at two-months after the end of CPRT training.

Results: Teacher implementation of CPRT components was steady during baseline and increased throughout the training period. A total of 19 teachers (95%) mastered all eight components of CPRT and implemented the intervention with fidelity after receiving training. The majority of teachers had difficulty maintaining fidelity at two-months follow-up. Positive results were seen for student skills, with increases in communication and engagement after teachers began training. A total of 60% of students made accelerated progress on standardized communication assessments over the study period.

Conclusions: Teachers were able to accurately implement CPRT in their classrooms, but maintaining intervention use after the end of training was difficult. Teachers’ use of CPRT led to substantial student progress. This preliminary study supports the effectiveness of CPRT and provides important pilot data for a larger-scale effectiveness trial.