| dc.description |
Although people involved in the provision of early intervention services often assume that more intensive interventions result in better child outcomes than less intensive interventions, this assumption may be based more on cultural values rather than empirical evidence. In this article, we analyze the available evidence related to the question of whether more intensive interventions result in better outcomes. We considered three sources of evidence: (a) previous reviews of early intervention research, (b) a meta-analysis that included data on intervention intensity and outcomes, and (c) previously reported experimental studies that compared the effects of different levels of program intensity. Based on these combined sources, we suggest that there is little evidence at the present time that more intensive programs lead to better outcomes for children with disabilities. Some, albeit quite limited, support exists that more intensive programs may be beneficial for disadvantaged children. We discuss issues related to obtaining a greater understanding of factors associated with intensity, the possibility of an intensity threshold for children with disabilities, areas that require greater emphasis in future research, and concerns regarding the construct of intensity. |
