e treatment beginning at average ages of 34.6 and 40.9 months respectively and continuing for two or more years. Children in the experimental group received at least 40 hours of treatment per week, whereas children in control 1 received 10 hours or less per week. Children in control 2 were not treated by the YAP personnel, but were given an unspecified form of treatment (Gresham et al., 1999).At the end of the project, 47% of the children in the experimental group were reported as having “recovered.” This indicating that their IQ scores were in the normal range (M=7, Range=94-120), they had passed the first grade in a regular education classroom, and they showed continuing increases in social, emotional, and educational functioning. Lovaas also reported that the school staff described these children as indistinguishable from their normal peers. No children from control 1 and only one child from control 2 reached this point of “recovery” (Gresham et al., 1999).Although the YAP appears to have been successful, there are many methodological issues to be considered. Most importantly is the lack of random selection, being a threat to both internal and external validity. For example, we cannot prove that the improvements were a direct cause of the treatment and had nothing to do with the children being from the same area. This study has not been able to be replicated, leaving even more questions about the study’s effectiveness and efficiency. Ethical issues also need to be taken into account. Would it be right to put children in a control group with no treatment if we know they will fare worse without it? Though the finding that discrete trail training can create normal functioning may be controversial, this does not mean that the program was of absolutely no benefit. The use of this type of treatment has been shown to be helpful in teaching children discriminations among stimuli (Gresham et al., 1999...
