View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Art of Selection: Understanding Teachers' Intervention Choices for Preschool Autistic Students

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Art of Selection: Understanding Teachers' Intervention Choices for Preschool Autistic Students
Language: English
Authors: Jesse I. Fleming (ORCID 0000-0001-7438-0374), Suzanne McClain, Maria L. Hugh (ORCID 0000-0002-5696-4170)
Source: Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities. 2025 60(3):247-265.
Availability: Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities, Council for Exceptional Children. DDD, P.O. Box 3512, Fayetteville, AR 72702. Tel: 479-575-3326; Fax: 479-575-6676; Web site: http://www.daddcec.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2025
Sponsoring Agency: Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) (ED/OSERS)
Contract Number: H325H140001
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Educational Practices, Decision Making, Guides, Intervention, Evidence Based Practice, Preschool Children, Autism Spectrum Disorders, Special Education Teachers, Educational Strategies, Feasibility Studies, Individualized Education Programs, Skill Development, Generalization, Educational Philosophy
ISSN: 2154-1647
Abstract: Multiple reviews of research establish evidence-based practices (EBPs) that practitioners may use to support autistic children. Unfortunately, adoption of these EBPs remains variable and low, and many teachers report identifying and selecting appropriate practices for their students is a challenge. Decision-making guides informed by implementation theories and end-user considerations are needed. To identify factors that can be embedded into a decision-making guide, we surveyed 312 early childhood special education teachers and asked them to select an EBP to support a young autistic child with a social-communication goal and to explain their choice. Using both inductive and deductive qualitative approaches, we explored factors that influenced their EBP selection. Educators most often reported intervention factors as a rationale for their selection, and evaluations of interventions were frequently shaped by personal values and beliefs. Additionally, participants demonstrated a nuanced understanding of EBPs and engaged in a complex and multifaceted decision-making process when selecting interventions. Implications for policy and practice include training future and current teachers to select appropriate interventions given different students and contexts and conducting research that evaluates the feasibility, acceptability, and adaptability of EBPs.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1496444
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFn6kzWfHYMCkvaX9ydmpDjAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDP2Q9KMEPV8U88qgXAIBEICBm9Mi1j1fjjcEAdCf7vHN8K34xHU8zKWPNkrbDMgQz4ZxZae8qNVPB-ONIfazodV_HGEuAj-Am3_-yvK_CCkGbKd4xuUqIG_2teFHPArzFxMXqljUGkMQ9iPWNO5ssKIhr0TikutjZq_rF1IL7H1nnbt10X0_BKD93RNYKayHZrnd1Jk4tDnYYCTJ6qryWYZXB6RhowrtE-So7KlE
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0189687642;[b6wv]01sep.25;2025Dec02.06:01;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0189687642-1">The Art of Selection: Understanding Teachers' Intervention Choices for Preschool Autistic Students </title> <p>Multiple reviews of research establish evidence-based practices (EBPs) that practitioners may use to support autistic children. Unfortunately, adoption of these EBPs remains variable and low, and many teachers report identifying and selecting appropriate practices for their students is a challenge. Decision-making guides informed by implementation theories and end-user considerations are needed. To identify factors that can be embedded into a decision-making guide, we surveyed 312 early childhood special education teachers and asked them to select an EBP to support a young autistic child with a social-communication goal and to explain their choice. Using both inductive and deductive qualitative approaches, we explored factors that influenced their EBP selection. Educators most often reported intervention factors as a rationale for their selection, and evaluations of interventions were frequently shaped by personal values and beliefs. Additionally, participants demonstrated a nuanced understanding of EBPs and engaged in a complex and multifaceted decision-making process when selecting interventions. Implications for policy and practice include training future and current teachers to select appropriate interventions given different students and contexts and conducting research that evaluates the feasibility, acceptability, and adaptability of EBPs.</p> <p>Keywords: autism; disability/ies; preschool; education; instructional strategies</p> <p>Autistic children make up about 13% of children receiving special-education services in the United States ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref1">30</reflink>]). By the time autistic children go to kindergarten, many have not become proficient communicators ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>]). Early childhood special education (ECSE) teachers play an important role in choosing and leveraging instructional practices, such as evidence-based practices (EBPs), that facilitate skill development ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref3">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref4">34</reflink>]). However, educators report selecting an appropriate EBP is the primary obstacle to supporting skill development in autistic students ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>]), and current teacher training models do not prepare them for effective decision-making and implementation ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref6">20</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref7">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref8">25</reflink>]). Therefore, identifying factors that influence EBP selection for teachers of young autistic students is crucial to overcoming selection and implementation challenges ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref9">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref10">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>The purpose of this study is to explore how ECSE teachers describe factors that influenced their selection and rejection of EBPs for an autistic child. This study is part of a larger research project that found teachers' beliefs predicted their EBP selection ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref11">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref12">18</reflink>][<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref13">18</reflink>]). However, when asked to explain their decision, teachers identified additional factors, beyond beliefs, that warranted further exploration. Building on these findings, we use implementation science frameworks to examine which factors ECSE teachers consider most influential in their decision-making to inform the development of supports that align with teachers' needs and priorities.</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-2">EBPs for Autistic Children</hd> <p>Over the last 20 years, researchers made significant progress in identifying EBPs for autistic children. Systematic reviews, such as [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref14">34</reflink>], established 25 EBPs effective for improving social communication skills for young autistic children. These interventions, which include discrete trial teaching, modeling, self-management, and social skills training, can be tailored to individual needs and aligned with individualized education program goals. For young children with autism who require extensive support and exhibit differences in social communication, behavior, and interests, a variety of practices can be used to modify the environment and provide consistent and transferable support ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref15">23</reflink>]). For example, to support a child learning to play with peers, an educator may develop a plan to use visual supports to teach the concept of turn-taking in conversation, an augmentative and alternative communication system taught through systematic prompting and reinforcement, and a visually structured activity or game with visual task-analyzed instructions. Another educator may implement some of these same practice elements, such as systematic prompting and reinforcement, but deliver them through a discrete trial training package. Both approaches, supported by extant literature, may improve the child's engagement and play with peers. However, the specific EBP chosen will depend on various factors, and the same strategy may not be applied universally across teachers.</p> <p>In research studies, these EBPs demonstrate effects across different activities, contexts, and classrooms ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref16">34</reflink>]), but in practice, educators have variable exposure to and use of these practices ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref17">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref18">20</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref19">19</reflink>]) even when provided coaching and receiving organizational support ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref20">25</reflink>]). This implementation gap needs to be a critical focus of special-education research ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref21">7</reflink>]), especially when educators in the field desire guidance on selecting practices ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref22">5</reflink>]) and experience barriers to implementation ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref23">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref24">18</reflink>] demonstrated the impact of educators' beliefs on practice selection, other researchers suggest additional factors influence teacher decision-making ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref25">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref26">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref27">28</reflink>]). Given the importance of effective early intervention for young autistic students, it is critical to understand the unique factors influencing ECSE educators' EBP evaluation and selection for a specific child. Yet, extant research presents an incomplete picture of influential factors across EBPs, contexts, and students. Preliminary research focused on primary and secondary schools evaluated researcher-identified factors such as student characteristics ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref28">21</reflink>]) and the social validity of EBPs ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref29">28</reflink>]). A recent qualitative study on early childhood teachers' decision-making found educators working with autistic children considered intervention features, student characteristics, and their own professional expertise but also relied on external sources to guide their decisions ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref30">36</reflink>]). Another mixed-methods study demonstrated pre-service teachers struggle with EBP selection and identified multiple factors (e.g., experience, child characteristics, team dynamics) that influence decision-making ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref31">17</reflink>]). This body of research highlights the importance of understanding how educators reflect on their own decision-making, as these insights can inform both teacher preparation and research. Despite this potential, additional research is needed to understand teacher decision-making in ECSE contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-3">Implementation Frameworks to Guide Identification of Decision-Making Factors</hd> <p>Implementation science frameworks can be used to identify factors that may influence whether and how EBPs are used (or not used) in authentic contexts ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref32">7</reflink>]). Given the various influences identified for other educators, one promising multilevel approach to understanding ECSE educators' decision-making is the implementation framework introduced by [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref33">13</reflink>]. Under this framework, Domitrovich and colleagues frame the multilevel context of intervention implementation in schools through a three-level conceptual framework used across hundreds of articles and in autism implementation research (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref34">2</reflink>]). This multilevel implementation quality framework outlines factors that surround the educator and child distally and impact implementation, such as the macro-level policies (federal special-education law and school financing) and school-level factors (e.g., available resources, school culture, or administrative support). Within these levels is the educator (i.e., teacher level), whose knowledge, skills, and attitudes influence implementation ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref35">13</reflink>]) and selection ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref36">18</reflink>]). Although the framework is developed for school-wide interventions (e.g., Tier I social–emotional programs; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref37">13</reflink>]), it outlines the structures and contextual factors that influence decision-making in classrooms and can help identify how educators can be supported in making appropriate intervention decisions.</p> <p>In addition to the three levels identified within Domitrovich's multilevel framework, additional factors related to EBP selection ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref38">21</reflink>]) and implementation ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref39">2</reflink>]) for autistic students should be considered. The consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref40">11</reflink>]) can complement school-based multilevel frameworks by organizing key constructs into specific domains. For example, the innovation domain (i.e., the EBPs) includes intervention-specific constructs such as intervention complexity, cost, adaptability, and research evidence. CFIR also considers the characteristics of the innovation recipient, in this case, the autistic child, including their strengths, preferences, skill areas, and support needs ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref41">11</reflink>]). Indeed, extant research indicates factors at the child level and intervention level are critical considerations for implementation ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref42">21</reflink>]) and may serve as barriers or facilitators to EBP use ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref43">2</reflink>]). Therefore, there is a need to explore how the multiple domains that influence decision-making (e.g., student characteristics, teacher beliefs, intervention features) shape how ECSE teachers select and implement EBPs for young autistic children.</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-4">Current Study</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to explore potential factors that impact the selection and nonselection of EBPs when supporting young children with autism. This study builds on two prior analyses using the same dataset, which examined how teachers' beliefs, familiarity, and training relate to EBP selection and implementation ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref44">18</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref45">19</reflink>]). These earlier studies highlighted variability in teacher decision-making and raised new questions about the factors underlying practice selection. Building on these findings, the current study uses implementation science frameworks to explore the open-ended rationales teachers provided when selecting or rejecting specific EBPs in response to a hypothetical classroom vignette. Exploring teacher rationales is important to better understand which contextual factors influence EBP selection and how researchers can develop interventions that are effective, acceptable, and informed by the lived experiences and expertise of ECSE practitioners ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref46">6</reflink>]). Identifying the intervention-, student-, teacher-, school-, and macro-level teachers describe may facilitate the development of a guide or resource that supports the selection of appropriate and effective practices given the child and context. Such a resource, or decision guide ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref47">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref48">35</reflink>]), could enhance the training of in-service and pre-service teachers to select and implement appropriate EBPs and inform the development of EBPs that may be a better fit for ECSE settings. Therefore, we pose the following research questions: (a) What factors at the intervention, student, teacher, school, and macro levels do ECSE teachers consider when selecting an EBP and how do these factors vary by practice, first- or last-choice selection, and the demographic characteristics of teachers? and (b) How do teachers describe the factors at different levels that impact their selection or nonselection of EBPs?</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-5">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189687642-6">Participants and Recruitment</hd> <p>After approval from a university Institutional Review Board, participants were recruited using modified snowball sampling. Recruitment materials, including information about the study, eligibility criteria, incentives, and participation requirements, were distributed to ECSE teachers, coordinators, faculty, and national organizations. Participants were encouraged to share these materials with eligible ECSE teachers. To mitigate inauthentic responses, enhanced protections such as screener surveys, attention checks, and bot-detection measures were added to the survey. A response rate was not calculated due to the nature of snowball sampling, but 312 authentic and complete responses (out of 553 completed screeners) were included in the study. Most of the 312 licensed ECSE teachers who worked with at least one 3–5-year-old with autism in a preschool setting participants identified as female (95%), were white or Caucasian (90%), received their initial license in ECSE (71%), had worked in a preschool setting for more than 4 years (73%), and were working in self-contained (53%) or inclusive settings (47%; see Table 1 for a summary of demographic information). Participants from 27 states participated from February to May 2020.</p> <p>Table 1. Participant Demographic Information.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Demographic Variables</th><th align="left"><italic>n</italic></th><th align="left">%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Initial license type</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> EC special education</td><td>222</td><td>71.15</td></tr><tr><td> General education (K-12)</td><td>97</td><td>31.09</td></tr><tr><td> Moderate/severe</td><td>29</td><td>9.29</td></tr><tr><td> EC general education (birth–5)</td><td>16</td><td>5.13</td></tr><tr><td> Learning disabilities</td><td>11</td><td>3.53</td></tr><tr><td> Autism</td><td>9</td><td>2.88</td></tr><tr><td> License other</td><td>19</td><td>6.09</td></tr><tr><td>Time licensed (years)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> <1</td><td>25</td><td>8.01</td></tr><tr><td> 1–3</td><td>64</td><td>20.51</td></tr><tr><td> 4–8</td><td>93</td><td>29.81</td></tr><tr><td> 9–13</td><td>54</td><td>17.31</td></tr><tr><td> 14–18</td><td>32</td><td>10.26</td></tr><tr><td> 19–23</td><td>22</td><td>7.05</td></tr><tr><td> >23</td><td>22</td><td>7.05</td></tr><tr><td>Time working in preschool (years)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> <1</td><td>26</td><td>8.33</td></tr><tr><td> 1–3</td><td>69</td><td>22.12</td></tr><tr><td> 4–8</td><td>98</td><td>31.41</td></tr><tr><td> 9–13</td><td>60</td><td>19.23</td></tr><tr><td> 14–18</td><td>26</td><td>8.33</td></tr><tr><td> 19–23</td><td>20</td><td>6.41</td></tr><tr><td> >23</td><td>13</td><td>4.17</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom models</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Self-contained</td><td>117</td><td>52.7</td></tr><tr><td> Inclusive: general education</td><td>76</td><td>34.2</td></tr><tr><td> Inclusive: special education</td><td>58</td><td>26.1</td></tr><tr><td> Inclusive: co-taught</td><td>55</td><td>24.8</td></tr><tr><td> ECSE other</td><td>10</td><td>4.5</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>. <emph>N</emph> = 312. One hundred ten (35.26%) participants earned more than one initial license. One hundred thirteen (36%) participants served in more than one classroom model in the 2019 to 2020 school year. EC = early childhood; ECSE = early childhood special education.</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-7">Instrument Development</hd> <p>The survey used in this study was developed and implemented as part of a larger project examining ECSE teachers' beliefs and decision-making related to EBPs ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref49">18</reflink>]). The instrument was designed in collaboration with field experts using item-writing guidelines and "think-alouds" to refine the survey and support construct validity ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref50">12</reflink>]). To ensure construct validity, two former ECSE teachers participated in a think-aloud procedure, enabling researchers to refine survey items and administration procedures.</p> <p>The larger survey (see [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref51">16</reflink>]) measured teachers' familiarity, training, and current use of EBPs, which are reported in prior studies ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref52">19</reflink>]). The current study used the discrete choice experiment for which teachers were first presented with a vignette (see [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref53">16</reflink>]) describing a preschool-aged autistic child with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) goal targeting social communication (requesting help during play). The vignette was designed to capture a realistic classroom scenario while minimizing potential bias by omitting the child's name, gender, and race ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref54">18</reflink>]). Teachers were asked to select one of the five EBPs (i.e., naturalistic intervention, peer-mediated instruction and interventions [PMII], social narratives, discrete trial training (DTT), scripting) that met the following inclusion criteria: (a) targeted social communication skills in children aged 0–5 (based on [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref55">38</reflink>], prior to the 2020 report), (b) were designed for school settings, (c) focused solely on skill acquisition, and (d) did not require additional certification or financial resources to implement.</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-8">Procedure</hd> <p>After consenting to participate in the study, participants were sent a survey via Qualtrics, and most participants completed the survey in 30–40 min. Within the survey, participants first completed the discrete choice experiment, which began with a vignette and included information on the five EBPs (see [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref56">16</reflink>]) presented in a random order. Participants then selected an EBP they would try first to support the young student with autism and provided a brief rationale for their selection. Participants also selected a practice they were least likely to try and a rationale for this selection. Responses for first and last choices were generally a few sentences in length and served as the primary dataset for this analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-9">Researcher Reflexivity and Trustworthiness</hd> <p>The researchers for this project were special-education faculty and doctoral students who were former educators of autistic children and are white, nonautistic, and caregivers of young children. Collectively, we are proponents of EBPs in ECSE and their potential to improve academic, social, and behavioral outcomes for autistic students. Throughout the study, we engaged in reflexive practices such as memo writing, reflexive discussions, and peer debriefing to fairly and accurately represent participant perspectives while remaining critically aware of our own assumptions and positionality.</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-10">Data Analysis</hd> <p>We employed multiple analyses to answer the research questions for the current study. For the first research question, we used deductive coding to explore which factors influence teachers' selection of EBPs. Drawing on Domitrovich's theoretical framework ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref57">13</reflink>]) and the CFIR for innovation and student factors ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref58">11</reflink>]), we organized the qualitative responses into predefined levels while extending Domitrovich's framework to include intervention and student characteristics. Coding was theory-driven ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref59">4</reflink>]) as we were interested in examining the data with an implementation frame. Code levels included: (a) macro (i.e., government- or district-level policies, (b) school/classroom (i.e., structural or policy factors, characteristics, culture), (c) teacher (i.e., beliefs, experiences, knowledge, self-efficacy), (d) intervention (i.e., feasibility, usefulness, procedures), and (e) student (i.e., child's skills or characteristics).</p> <p>All authors supported the development of the codebook, and the authors coded a random subset of the data to ensure reliability and coherence. Once 100% agreement was achieved, the first and second authors double-coded the remaining data. Interrater reliability, calculated by adding the number of agreements from both reviewers divided by the total number of codes was 89% (101 total disagreements). This level of reliability indicates a strong level of agreement, suggesting that the coding process was consistent across raters. When disagreements occurred, the raters met to discuss specific codes and reach a consensus.</p> <p>To further explore patterns in teachers' rationales for selecting or rejecting EBPs, we quantitized the qualitative data. Quantitizing involves assigning a numerical value to each code level to facilitate additional quantitative analysis ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref60">32</reflink>]). Although this practice is controversial among qualitative researchers, it is a common practice in mixed-method research and can support pattern recognition, facilitate group-level comparisons, and ensure data representation when a study includes a large number of qualitative responses ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref61">32</reflink>]). Given the large number of survey responses within this data set, the quantification of qualitative data allowed us to uncover patterns, trends, and relationships across levels and explore the factors that affect ECSE teachers' decision-making. Researchers used descriptive statistics to summarize the data and conducted chi-squared tests of independence to determine differences in code selection across practices, first and last choices, and demographic characteristics of participants.</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-11">Thematic Analysis</hd> <p>After completing the deductive coding and quantitizing qualitative results for research question 1, it became evident that many participant responses spanned across multiple levels of the theoretical framework. For example, feasibility was discussed within the context of the student, teacher, and classroom. While these original analyses allowed us to categorize responses and compare responses across groups, they did not fully capture the cross-level decision-making reflected in the data. This realization highlighted the need for additional qualitative analysis to explore how teachers described their reasoning across the levels of the theoretical framework.</p> <p>For research question 2, we conducted a thematic analysis of the data to explore themes related to practice selection. This qualitative exploration allowed researchers to capture the nuances embedded in the data, revealing emergent themes that might not be fully captured through the quantitative approach used for research question 1. Following the recommendations from [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref62">4</reflink>], we first familiarized ourselves with the data, which included reading all participant responses and noting any initial insights. Second, the first and second authors generated initial codes. Codes were inductive or data-driven and represented semantic content or conceptual ideas. The authors systematically coded the data line-by-line, taking note of patterns and emergent themes, and met regularly to ensure reliability and maintain reflexivity ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref63">10</reflink>]). The code-generating process was iterative as the authors discussed interpretations of the data, discussed definitions and examples of codes, and noted their insights in analytic memos ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref64">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>After finalizing and defining emergent codes, we sorted, collated, and combined codes into themes. Emergent themes were developed using thematic maps, codes, analytic memos, and discussion among the authors ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref65">4</reflink>]). The thematic analysis culminated in five themes: feasibility, instructional fit, evidence of and potential for skill acquisition and generalization, instructional philosophy, and intervention components. The authors reviewed and refined these themes by returning to the data to compare emergent themes to participant responses. This was done to ensure the emergent themes were grounded in the data, determine the coherency of themes, explore the relationship between themes, and identify any exceptions or anomalies that deviate from the emergent themes. Lastly, the authors defined and named themes. Definitions included a description of the theme and how the theme related to other themes, purposely avoiding overlap between themes and codes ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref66">4</reflink>]; see Table 2 for an overview of codes and themes).</p> <p>Table 2. Themes, Codes, and Exemplar Quotes.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Themes</th><th align="left">Codes</th><th align="left" colspan="2">Exemplar Quotes</th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left">Try First</th><th align="left">Try Last</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Feasibility</td><td>TrainingResourcesKnowledgeTimeStudent abilityEnvironment</td><td>N/A</td><td>"I am not familiar with this strategy. I would want to see it in practice and receive training on how best to use this strategy."</td></tr><tr><td>Instructional fit</td><td>Appropriate for: <list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Student</p></list-item><list-item><p>Autism</p></list-item><list-item><p>IEP goal</p></list-item><list-item><p>Setting</p></list-item><list-item><p>Age</p></list-item></list>Teacher practice</td><td>"It is the most natural for me to use with my students.""The IEP goal is in the natural environment of choice time and NI would be happening in this natural environment."</td><td>"It seems too highly structured for a free play help request. I would want to try to naturally elicit the responses.""Student does not appear to be motivated by peer interactions."</td></tr><tr><td>Evidence of and potential for skill acquisition and generalization</td><td>Prior experienceEffectiveEfficientGeneralizationGenuine social skills</td><td>"I've experienced that this strategy yields the greatest likelihood of skill generalization and the least amount of frustration from the child."</td><td>"Scripting in this situation may not link the purpose of communication with the need—the student may learn the phrase but not connect it to the intended purpose."</td></tr><tr><td>Instructional philosophy</td><td>ValuesBeliefsPhilosophyPreferencesContinuum of interventions</td><td>"I believe students should be taught as much as possible in their typical environment before resorting to more restrictive ways of teaching.""Scripting would provide a minimal level of assistance to prompt the skill."</td><td>"I believe you should start with the least prompting and then providing more prompting depending on the response by the student. If the student needed more support, then I would teach them using DTT.""I would use PMII after initial acquisition of the skill."</td></tr><tr><td>Intervention features</td><td>EaseSimplicityFlexibilityTraining neededInteroperability</td><td>"Social stories can be used during large group instruction, small group practice, and individual work times/practice."</td><td>"It was the most complicated."</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note</emph>. DTT = discrete trial training; PMII = peer-mediated instruction and intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-12">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189687642-13">Research Question 1</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics revealed naturalistic intervention received the most first-choice selections (<emph>n</emph> = 114), followed by scripting (<emph>n</emph> = 83), DTT (<emph>n</emph> = 49), social narratives (<emph>n</emph> = 35), and PMII (<emph>n</emph> = 26). For last-choice selections, DTT received the most (<emph>n</emph> = 119), followed by social narratives (<emph>n</emph> = 65), PMII (<emph>n</emph> = 60), naturalistic intervention (<emph>n</emph> = 37), and scripting (<emph>n</emph> = 24). DTT received the most selections overall (<emph>n</emph> = 168) and PMII received the least number of total selections (<emph>n</emph> = 86). Naturalistic intervention and scripting were the only interventions that received more first-choice selections than last-choice selections. Overall, the five levels derived from Domitrovich's framework and the CFIR ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref67">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref68">13</reflink>]) indicated participants commonly described intervention factors (44%) when justifying their selections. Teacher (24%) and student factors (23%) were also described by participants, with fewer indicating school and classroom factors (9%) played a role in their decision. Very few participants discussed macro factors (0.2%). Teachers often identified multiple factor levels when describing their rationale for selecting or rejecting an intervention, with 41% referencing factors across more than one level (e.g., student, teacher, intervention, classroom, macro).</p> <p>Researchers also found the factors influencing teachers' EBP selection varied across practices and whether it was selected as a first or last choice, highlighting the unique and individualized perspectives on various EBPs. In other words, teachers described different reasons for selecting specific practices and the factors that influence a teacher to select a practice may differ from those that influence them not to use another. For example, school/classroom factors were cited in 20% of PMII selections, more than double the frequency in other practices. Student-level factors were most common for scripting, PMII, and social narratives, and intervention factors were most common for naturalistic intervention and DTT. Factors that influence first- and last-choice selections may also reflect facilitators and barriers to implementation as participants indicate why they would and would not select certain interventions. For example, participants discussed intervention factors as most commonly influencing their first choice (53%), while last-choice selections were influenced by intervention (35%), teacher (28%), and student (26%) factors (see Table 3 for a summary of codes by first and last choices).</p> <p>Table 3. Level Codes by First and Last Choices.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="5">Level Codes</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Practices</th><th align="left">Selections</th><th align="left">Macro</th><th align="left">School/Classroom</th><th align="left">Teacher</th><th align="left">Intervention</th><th align="left">Student</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="7">Try first</td></tr><tr><td> NI</td><td>114</td><td>1</td><td>14</td><td>31</td><td>87</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td> DTT</td><td>49</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>14</td><td>39</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td> Script</td><td>83</td><td>0</td><td>6</td><td>16</td><td>62</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td> PMII</td><td>26</td><td>0</td><td>7</td><td>11</td><td>15</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td> SN</td><td>35</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>14</td><td>24</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>First Total</td><td>307</td><td>1</td><td>30</td><td>86</td><td>227</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">Try last</td></tr><tr><td> NI</td><td>37</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>18</td><td>13</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td> DTT</td><td>119</td><td>0</td><td>19</td><td>47</td><td>71</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td> Script</td><td>24</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td> PMII</td><td>60</td><td>0</td><td>19</td><td>20</td><td>22</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td> SN</td><td>65</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>19</td><td>26</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Last total</td><td>305</td><td>1</td><td>46</td><td>113</td><td>142</td><td>105</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Note</emph>. NI = naturalistic intervention; DTT = discrete trial training; Scrip = scripting; PMII = peer-mediated instruction and interventions; SN = social narratives.</p> <p>Chi-squared tests of independence revealed statistically significant associations between practice selection and school/classroom factors, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref69">4</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 312) = 35.29, <emph>p</emph> <.001; intervention factors, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref70">4</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 312) = 22.59, <emph>p</emph> <.001; and student factors, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref71">4</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 312) = 36.49, <emph>p</emph> <.001. Significant relationships also emerged between first- and last-choice selection and both teacher factors, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref72">1</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 312) = 3.87, <emph>p</emph> =.04, and intervention factors, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref73">1</reflink>, _I_N_i_ = 312) = 46.68, <emph>p</emph> <.001. However, no significant associations were found between EBP selection and participants' demographic characteristics, including experience, initial licensure type, and classroom setting.</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-14">Research Question 2</hd> <p>Five themes emerged from the data: feasibility, instructional fit, evidence and potential for skill acquisition and generalization, instructional philosophy, and intervention components.</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-15">Theme 1: Feasibility</hd> <p>Feasibility assesses the practicality and logistical considerations associated with implementing an EBP. Educators shared whether they thought they could feasibly use an EBP given the available resources, time constraints, student ability (student factor), teacher knowledge, and the classroom environment. When considering feasibility, teachers considered whether they had the necessary training (teacher factors), materials (classroom factors), and time to execute the intervention effectively. For example, many participants highlighted their lack of familiarity (teacher factor) as a reason why an intervention may not be feasible because an intervention seemed too complex (intervention factor). Other participants discussed the developmental stage and abilities of the focal child and their peers. Participants often cited feasibility as a reason to select an intervention last but was rarely described when selecting an EBP first, suggesting teachers were pragmatic in their decision-making, prioritizing interventions they believe can be realistically implemented in their classrooms.</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-16">Theme 2: Instructional Fit</hd> <p>Instructional fit refers to educators' perceived suitability or appropriateness of an EBP based on a collection of factors for a particular student, teacher, and classroom. Educators shared practices "fit" well when they aligned with current practices of the teacher (teacher factor), classroom climate and environment (classroom factor), target goal/IEP goal (student factor), best practice guidelines for children with autism (teacher factor), and the unique needs and preferences of the focal child (student factor). Teachers' assessments of whether they could efficiently use a practice also contributed to their descriptions of fit. For example, many participants stated they did not believe social narratives were an appropriate intervention to help a child ask for help if the child was only communicating with a few words (student and intervention factor). Teachers noted "social stories seem to be developmentally inappropriate" and the focal child "needs actual practice asking for help, not just reading about it." Participants also highlighted some interventions may be too complex or abstract for their context. Specifically, many participants reported PMII could not be implemented with fidelity by preschool peers and that preschoolers with autism "do not always pick up on other students' social cues" (classroom, intervention factors).</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-17">Theme 3: Evidence of and Potential for Skill Acquisition and Generalization</hd> <p>Evidence of and potential for skill acquisition and generalization is reflective of how prior experience and evidence relate to the potential for a specific intervention to support a child effectively and efficiently in acquiring the desired skill and generalizing the skill to new settings. This theme also encompasses teachers' belief that the intervention should promote meaningful and long-lasting change in the child (teacher factors). For example, teachers highlighted the importance of selecting interventions that "can meet so much more than the child's IEP goal" and would promote the development of genuine social skills rather than "just memorizing a word." Teachers selected EBPs that would allow the child to be successful in a variety of situations and settings while promoting the development of more complex social skills that would positively impact the child in the future. For example, many participants argued that while some interventions will teach a child how to ask for help, not all interventions teach children when or "why they are asking for help." Participants prioritized interventions that facilitated a deeper understanding and more robust skill development (intervention and teacher factors).</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-18">Theme 4: Instructional Philosophy</hd> <p>Instructional philosophy relates to personal ideals, philosophy, or values that influence teachers' beliefs about skill development and their selection of interventions (teacher factors). When considering an intervention, teachers preferred interventions aligned with their belief system about how children learn best. This theme encompasses teachers' beliefs not just about the specific EBPs (intervention factors), but also about how instruction should be delivered (teacher factor), the level of support or prompting to provide (intervention factor), and the importance of providing interventions in the least-restrictive and natural learning environment (intervention and classroom factor). Although teachers described prioritizing interventions that fit within their belief system first, many noted they were willing to try alternatives, or a combination of practices should their first-choice intervention not produce the student outcomes they desired. For example, some teachers discussed a preference for iterative development with opportunities to practice, explicit instruction, and adult-led interventions when first introducing a skill. However, they also acknowledged the value of transitioning to other interventions to support generalization once the skill has been acquired, suggesting a flexible and dynamic approach to implementing interventions. Many participants also indicated they would use different interventions to support skill acquisition, fluency, and generalization depending on the child's ability. As one participant described, they would first use DTT to "teach necessary skills that would next be implemented in naturalistic teaching environments." Instructional philosophy not only impacted the selection of an intervention but also the order in which interventions were considered for use. Educators described interventions at odds with their instructional philosophy were not selected as the first intervention to try but were often noted as an option to try later, indicating these teachers were willing to put aside their personal philosophies (teacher factor) in the best interest of the child (student factor).</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-19">Theme 5: Intervention Features</hd> <p>Intervention components refer to the distinct features of a practice that support student learning, enable effective teacher implementation, and reduce the logistical demands of training and data collection (intervention, teacher, and classroom factors). Teachers often cited an intervention's flexibility (intervention factors) so that it may be quickly and easily adapted to fit the individual needs of the child or the instructional environment. Participants also highlighted the importance of interventions that can be integrated into "multiple settings throughout the day" and with flexible groupings such as "large group instruction, small group practice, and individual work times/practice." Educators also reported having multiple teachers and paraeducators serving the child (classroom factors) led them to choose a practice that all educators could easily implement (intervention factors, i.e., interoperability).</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-20">Discussion</hd> <p>This study uncovered teacher-identified factors that can be used to build implementation supports that address a teacher-identified need for guidance on selecting EBPs for autistic students ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref74">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref75">17</reflink>]). The expertise shared by ECSE teachers provides unique insight into teachers' decision-making process, specifically showing significant variability, despite all teachers being presented with the same scenario and set of effective practices. Our findings provide a more holistic representation of the various factors demonstrated in prior research ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref76">18</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref77">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref78">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref79">26</reflink>]) by aligning them with well-researched frameworks ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref80">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref81">13</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-21">Practice-Based Evidence</hd> <p>Findings from the study inform practice-based evidence, or rather, contextual and experiential evidence from real-life teachers implementing EBPs ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref82">6</reflink>]). Practice-based evidence is complementary to EBP as it reveals the complexities of implementing EBPs in classrooms and reflects the expertise of teachers. Despite empirical evidence supporting all five practices used in the current study, participants perceived that instructional fit, effectiveness, and feasibility were different across practices. Although there was no consensus, it was clear naturalistic intervention and scripting were preferred over DTT, PMII, and social narratives—indicating a gap or misalignment between practice-based evidence and EBP. This gap indicates researchers need to examine the feasibility and fit of specific practices like DTT in ECSE settings. Importantly, these examinations should be informed by involving the perspectives of educators, autistic adults, and students (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref83">24</reflink>]). The bidirectional nature of EBP and practice-based evidence can ensure effective practices matching the priorities of a community or the context of a classroom are regularly implemented. Prioritizing practice-based evidence may also help address persistent implementation and decision-making challenges related to student, teacher, and classroom-level factors ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref84">17</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-22">Multilevel Factors Influencing Decision-Making</hd> <p>Exploring the gap between practice-based evidence and EBP using a multilevel theory and framework ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref85">13</reflink>]) and incorporating intervention and student factors from another framework ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref86">11</reflink>]) revealed the factors most proximal to the student (e.g., student, teacher, intervention, classroom) influenced teachers' EBP evaluation and selection. Participants cited intervention factors (e.g., effectiveness, ease, adaptability, structure, procedures; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref87">11</reflink>]) as the most influential, yet educational and implementation research rarely attend to these factors, particularly when educators select or prepare to use EBPs ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref88">29</reflink>]). Indeed, intervention factors were significantly associated with first-choice selections and the most common code level across first- and last-choice selections, as indicated by our chi-squared analyses. Qualitative results corroborated this finding by highlighting participants' preference for effective and feasible practices that could be seamlessly integrated into existing routines to meet the needs of students. Researchers and teacher educators should address this need by adapting EBPs to better align with individual student needs and classroom environments, as well as conducting more research to assess the practical implementation of interventions across contexts ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref89">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref90">28</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-23">Teacher Factors Influencing Selections</hd> <p>The results illustrate how educators' beliefs influence their selection of practices, a finding replicated in our previous study ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref91">18</reflink>]). Despite empirical evidence supporting all five practices ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref92">34</reflink>]), educators described their selection based on their values and beliefs. For example, the quantitized data indicated intervention factors most often motivated teachers' selection of naturalistic intervention and scripting over other options. Similarly, the thematic analysis highlighted teachers valued natural, least-restrictive, and inclusive EBPs. Although these findings do not suggest consensus in the field, as some participants valued more structured practices, it is clear participants valued interventions that support communication and promote access to general education settings ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref93">27</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-24">Flexible Decision-Making</hd> <p>Finally, participants described flexibility in their decision-making and were willing to use multiple or alternative practices if their first choice was not effective. In this regard, teachers demonstrated a strong understanding of EBPs on the surface, acknowledging these approaches may not work universally or may need to be adapted to support individual children ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref94">8</reflink>]). This complex, individual, and results-driven decision-making process, paired with autonomy and flexibility, allows teachers to respond to the needs of their students and classroom. This process, however, may not be compatible with traditional top-down approaches to curriculum selection, with prescribed instructional demands and expectations. Furthermore, given macro-level factors had minimal influence on decision-making in the current study, administrators, teacher educators, and policymakers may need to shift their expectations of classroom instruction—from focusing on prescribed curricula to prioritizing training teachers in decision-making, specifically in knowing "when" and "why" each EBP would be effective or ineffective (i.e., conditional knowledge).</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-25">Implications for Research and Practice</hd> <p>An important finding from the current study was that different educators have different reasons to select a practice first or last, and this differed substantially across EBPs. In other words, barriers and facilitators to EBP selection differed across interventions revealing the nuanced nature of ECSE teachers' EBP selection for autistic students. These findings suggest training and professional development cannot be uniform across practices, and researchers must continue to explore for whom and under what conditions each EBP is likely to succeed in ECSE through efficacy and teacher-implemented studies emphasizing procedural knowledge and decision-making. In the medical field, decision-making guides commonly support medical clinicians ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref95">22</reflink>]), and educators may benefit from similar supports ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref96">35</reflink>]). Decision-making guides may also decrease the need to consult non-research-based supports (e.g., Teachers Pay Teachers, Pinterest; [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref97">3</reflink>]) and reduce biases related to teacher decision-making in the classroom ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref98">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref99">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>The results also bolster prior research suggesting a teacher's instructional philosophy and beliefs are deeply ingrained within the teacher's decisions ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref100">18</reflink>]). Because many teachers share values of inclusion aligned with societal movements ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref101">31</reflink>]), more research demonstrating the feasibility of EBPs in inclusive contexts is needed ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref102">37</reflink>]). Finally, although many interventions have strong evidentiary support, these interventions are only effective if they can be translated into the classroom environment with ongoing procedural fidelity. More focus on practice-based evidence and social validity outcomes of interventions could promote EBP implementation across settings ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref103">6</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189687642-26">Limitations</hd> <p>Several limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. First, the generalizability of the results is limited due to the use of convenience and snowball sampling, which resulted in a relatively homogenous sample in terms of race, gender, and geographic location. Additionally, the study was conducted within the context of a discrete choice experiment using a brief vignette that lacked comprehensive contextual information, such as student race and gender. In real-world settings, educators typically have a deeper understanding of their students and may choose different practices based on additional factors. Furthermore, there is a potential for response bias and social desirability effects, and this study did not assess or link responses to actual practice implementation. Finally, we did not include teacher familiarity or knowledge of practices, which can impact practice selection and implementation. Future research should address these limitations and build on the current study's findings to better support ECSE decision-making and EBP implementation.</p> <ref id="AN0189687642-27"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Andzik N. R., Schaefer J. M., Nichols R. T., Chung Y. C. (2018). National survey describing and quantifying students with communication needs. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 21(1), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/17518423.2017.1339133</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref23" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Barry L., Holloway J., McMahon J. (2020). A scoping review of the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of interventions in autism education. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 78, 101617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2020.101617</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref97" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Beahm L. A., Yan X., Cook B. G. (2021). Where do teachers go for behavior management strategies? Education and Treatment of Children, 44(3), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-021-00046-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref59" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Braun V., Clarke V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Brock M. E., Dynia J. M., Dueker S. A., Barczak M. A. (2020). Teacher-reported priorities and practices for students with autism: Characterizing the research-to-practice gap. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 35(2), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357619881217</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref46" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Cook B. G., Cook L. (2016). Leveraging evidence-based practice through partnerships based on practice-based evidence. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 14(2), 143–157.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref21" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cook B. G., Odom S. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref94" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cook B. G., Tankersley M., Harjusola-Webb S. (2008). Evidence-based special education and professional wisdom: Putting it all together. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(2), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451208321566</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref64" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Court D., Merav L., Ornan E. (2017). Positioning the researcher in the qualitative research process: Self-reflexivity, epistemology, and values. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-18.3.2764</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell J. W., Poth C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Damschroder L. J., Reardon C. M., Widerquist M. A. O., Lowery J. (2022). The updated consolidated framework for implementation research based on user feedback. Implementation Science, 17(1), 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dillman D. A., Smyth J. D., Christian L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Domitrovich C. E., Bradshaw C. P., Poduska J. M., Hoagwood K., Buckley J. A., Olin S., Romanelli L. H., Leaf P. J., Greenberg M. T., Ialongo N. S. (2008). Maximizing the implementation quality of evidence-based preventive interventions in schools: A conceptual framework. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 1(3), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/1754730X.2008.9715730</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dynia J. M., Walton K. M., Brock M. E., Tiede G. (2020). Early childhood special education teachers' use of evidence-based practices with children with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 77, 101606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2020.101606</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gage N. A., Whitford D. K., Katsiyannis A., Adams S., Jasper A. (2019). National analysis of the disciplinary exclusion of black students with and without disabilities. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28, 1754–1764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01407-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hugh M. L. (2020). Exploring determinants of early childhood special educators' practice selections for young children with autism spectrum disorder. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota ].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hugh M. L., Horbanczk S., Fettig A., Locke J. (2025). Experience matters: A mixed methods exploration of pre-service teachers' intervention planning. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 24(2), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12704</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hugh M. L., Johnson L., Cook C. (2022). Preschool teachers' practice selections for children with autism: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Autism, 26(1), 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613211024795</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hugh M. L., Johnson L. D., Fettig A. (2024). Preschool special educators' exposure to and use of evidence-based and low-value practices for students with autism. Focus on Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 39(3), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576241232898</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hugh M. L., Pullmann M., Joshi M., Tagavi D., Ahlers K., Hernandez A. M., Locke J. (2023). Educators' professional development mechanisms for evidence-based practice to include autistic elementary students: A mixed-methods analysis. Teacher Education and Special Education, 46(4), 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064231178768</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knight V. F., Huber H. B., Kuntz E. M., Carter E. W., Juarez A. P. (2019). Instructional practices, priorities, and preparedness for educating students with autism and intellectual disability. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 34(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357618755694</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kostick K. M., Trejo M., Volk R. J., Estep J. D., Blumenthal-Barby J. S. (2020). Using nudges to enhance clinicians' implementation of shared decision making with patient decision aids. MDM Policy & Practice, 5(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381468320915906</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ledford J. R., Lambert J. M., Barton E. E., Ayres K. M. (2021). The evidence base for interventions for individuals with ASD: A call to improve practice conceptualization and synthesis. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 36(3), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576211023349</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee J., Giwa Onaiwu M., Boye Y., Burks-Abbot G., Brandsen S., Laurenti L., Logan R., Malone E. R., Tam M., Waqar S., Wardlow D., Roberts M. Y. (2025). Guiding principles and research priorities for early childhood autism therapy research: Results of a community-engaged project. Neurodiversity, 3(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/27546330251338419</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Locke J., Lawson G. M., Beidas R. S., Aarons G. A., Xie M., Lyon A. R., Stahmer A., Seidman M., Frederick L., Oh C., Spaulding C., Dorsey S., Mandell D. S. (2019). Individual and organizational factors that affect implementation of evidence-based practices for children with autism in public schools: A cross-sectional observational study. Implementation Science, 14(29), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0877-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lukins J. M., Able H., Hume K. (2023). Novice teachers' implementation of evidence-based practices in autism education: Examining the roles of preparation and perception. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 38(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576221144734</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mason R. A., Lory C., Gregori E., Gerow S., Rispoli M. J., David M., Kim S. Y., Wang D. (2022). Evidence-based practice in inclusive settings for students with autism: A best-evidence synthesis. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 11, 564–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-022-00352-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNeill J. (2019). Social validity and teachers' use of evidence-based practices for autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(11), 4585–4594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-04190-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moullin J. C., Dickson K. S., Stadnick N. A., Rabin B., Aarons G. A. (2019). Systematic review of the exploration, preparation, implementation, sustainment (EPIS) framework. Implementation Science, 14(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0842-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). Students with disabilities. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg/students-with-disabilities</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russell A., Scriney A., Smyth S. (2023). Educator attitudes towards the inclusion of students with autism spectrum disorders in mainstream education: A systematic review. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 10(3), 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-022-00303-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandelowski M., Voils C. I., Knafl G. (2009). On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 208–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809334210</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Segall M. J., Campbell J. M. (2014). Factors influencing the educational placement of students with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2013.10.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steinbrenner J. R., Hume K., Odom S. L., Morin K. L., Nowell S. W., Tomaszewski B., Szendrey S., McIntyre N. S., Yücesoy-Özkan S., Savage M. N. (2020). Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism. The UNC, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, National Clearinghouse on Autism Evidence and Practice Review Team.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sulek R., Robertson J., Goodall E., Liew A. W.-C., Pillar S., Upson G., Whitehouse A. J. O., Wicks R., Trembath D. (2024). Support preferences and clinical decision support systems (CDSS) in the clinical care of autistic children: Stakeholder perspectives. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41252-024-00410-4. Advance online publication.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sulek R., Trembath D., Paynter J., Keen D. (2019). Empirically supported treatments for students with autism: General education teacher knowledge, use, and social validity ratings. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 22(6), 380–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/17518423.2018.1526224</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watkins L., Ledbetter-Cho K., O'Reilly M., Barnard-Brak L., Garcia-Grau P. (2019). Interventions for students with autism in inclusive settings: A best-evidence synthesis and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 145(5), 490–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000190</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong C., Odom S. L., Hume K. A., Cox A. W., Fettig A., Kucharczyk S., Brock M. E., Plavnick J. B., Fleury V. P., Schultz T. R. (2015). Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism spectrum disorder: A comprehensive review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45, 1951–1966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2351-z</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0189687642-28"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> Jesse I. Fleming https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7438-0374 Maria L. Hugh https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5696-4170</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was financially supported by the National Center for Leadership in Intensive Intervention, Office of Special Education Programs (No. H325H140001).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jesse I. Fleming; Suzanne McClain and Maria L. Hugh</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref102"></nolink>
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1496444
    Name: ERIC Full Text
    Category: fullText
    Text: Full Text from ERIC
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1496444
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Art of Selection: Understanding Teachers' Intervention Choices for Preschool Autistic Students
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jesse+I%2E+Fleming%22">Jesse I. Fleming</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7438-0374">0000-0001-7438-0374</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Suzanne+McClain%22">Suzanne McClain</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Maria+L%2E+Hugh%22">Maria L. Hugh</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5696-4170">0000-0002-5696-4170</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Education+and+Training+in+Autism+and+Developmental+Disabilities%22"><i>Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities</i></searchLink>. 2025 60(3):247-265.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities, Council for Exceptional Children. DDD, P.O. Box 3512, Fayetteville, AR 72702. Tel: 479-575-3326; Fax: 479-575-6676; Web site: http://www.daddcec.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) (ED/OSERS)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: H325H140001
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Practices%22">Educational Practices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+Making%22">Decision Making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Guides%22">Guides</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence+Based+Practice%22">Evidence Based Practice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Autism+Spectrum+Disorders%22">Autism Spectrum Disorders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education+Teachers%22">Special Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Strategies%22">Educational Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feasibility+Studies%22">Feasibility Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individualized+Education+Programs%22">Individualized Education Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Generalization%22">Generalization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Philosophy%22">Educational Philosophy</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 2154-1647
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Multiple reviews of research establish evidence-based practices (EBPs) that practitioners may use to support autistic children. Unfortunately, adoption of these EBPs remains variable and low, and many teachers report identifying and selecting appropriate practices for their students is a challenge. Decision-making guides informed by implementation theories and end-user considerations are needed. To identify factors that can be embedded into a decision-making guide, we surveyed 312 early childhood special education teachers and asked them to select an EBP to support a young autistic child with a social-communication goal and to explain their choice. Using both inductive and deductive qualitative approaches, we explored factors that influenced their EBP selection. Educators most often reported intervention factors as a rationale for their selection, and evaluations of interventions were frequently shaped by personal values and beliefs. Additionally, participants demonstrated a nuanced understanding of EBPs and engaged in a complex and multifaceted decision-making process when selecting interventions. Implications for policy and practice include training future and current teachers to select appropriate interventions given different students and contexts and conducting research that evaluates the feasibility, acceptability, and adaptability of EBPs.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1496444
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1496444
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 247
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Educational Practices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decision Making
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Guides
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evidence Based Practice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Autism Spectrum Disorders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Education Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Strategies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Feasibility Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Individualized Education Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Generalization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Philosophy
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Art of Selection: Understanding Teachers' Intervention Choices for Preschool Autistic Students
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jesse I. Fleming
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Suzanne McClain
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Maria L. Hugh
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 2154-1647
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 60
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities
              Type: main
ResultId 1