We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
Implementation scientists increasingly recognize that the process of implementation is dynamic, leading to ad hoc modifications that may challenge fidelity in protocol-driven interventions. However, limited attention to ad hoc modifications impairs investigators’ ability to develop evidence-based hypotheses about how such modifications may impact intervention effectiveness and cost. We propose a multi-method process map methodology to facilitate the systematic data collection necessary to characterize ad hoc modifications that may impact primary intervention outcomes.
We employ process maps (drawn from systems science), as well as focus groups and semi-structured interviews (drawn from social sciences) to investigate ad hoc modifications. Focus groups are conducted with the protocol’s developers and/or planners (the implementation team) to characterize the protocol “as envisioned,” while interviews conducted with frontline administrators characterize the process “as realized in practice.” Process maps with both samples are used to identify when modifications occurred across a protocol-driven intervention. A case study investigating a multistage screening protocol for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) is presented to illustrate application and utility of the multi-method process maps.
In this case study, frontline administrators reported ad hoc modifications that potentially influenced the primary study outcome (e.g., time to ASD diagnosis). Ad hoc modifications occurred to accommodate (1) whether providers and/or parents were concerned about ASD, (2) perceptions of parental readiness to discuss ASD, and (3) perceptions of family service delivery needs and priorities.
Investigation of ad hoc modifications on primary outcomes offers new opportunities to develop empirically based adaptive interventions. Routine reporting standards are critical to provide full transparency when studying ad hoc modifications.
Thirteen children and adolescents with diagnoses of Asperger syndrome (AS) were matched with 13 nonautistic control children on chronological age and verbal IQ. They were tested on their ability to recognize simple facial emotions, as well as facial emotions paired with matching, mismatching, or irrelevant verbal labels. There were no differences between the groups at recognizing simple emotions but the Asperger group performed significantly worse than the control group at recognizing emotions when faces were paired with mismatching words (but not with matching or irrelevant words). The results suggest that there are qualitative differences from nonclinical populations in how children with AS process facial expressions. When presented with a more demanding affective processing task, individuals with AS showed a bias towards visual-verbal over visual-affective information (i.e., words over faces). Thus, children with AS may be utilizing compensatory strategies, such as verbal mediation, to process facial expressions of emotion.
This study examined social-emotional functioning in children with Gilles de la Tourette's syndrome (TS) alone and children with TS and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). In addition, the contribution of family functioning to social competence was examined. Children with a clinical diagnosis of TS were recruited from the Yale Child Study Center TS specialty clinic. Unaffected control children were recruited through newspaper advertisements and announcements within the university and at area schools. The final sample consisted of 72 children (45 boys and 27 girls) between the ages of 8 and 14. Sixteen children met DMS-III-R criteria for TS, 33 children met criteria for TS and ADHD, and 23 children had no psychiatric diagnoses. Children with TS and ADHD evidenced more externalizing and internalizing behavior problems and poorer social adaptation than children with TS only or unaffected controls. Children with TS only were not significantly different from unaffected controls on most measures of externalizing behaviors and social adaptation but did exhibit more internalizing symptoms. Tic symptom severity was not associated with social, behavioral, or emotional functioning among children with TS, even after stratifying by medication status. However, ADHD diagnosis, obsessional symptom severity, and family functioning were significantly associated with social and emotional adjustment among TS children. Moreover, family functioning was associated with social and emotional adjustment even after controlling for TS and ADHD diagnostic status. These findings demonstrate that much of the social and behavioral dysfunction in children with TS is ADHD-specific and children with TS alone have a very different social-emotional profile than do those with TS plus ADHD. Finally, social-emotional adjustment in children with TS is best understood within the family context.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.