Abstract
It should be noted that for six of the 30 CTMs, the information from model developers was obtained through email communication rather than telephone interviews as originally stated in the paper. Also, since publication of this article, information to which we did not have access at the time of the review became available. An article by BakerEriczen et al. (2007), which examined outcomes for the Pivotal Response Treatment (PRT) model, was published shortly after we had concluded collecting articles for our review. If we had access to the article at the time of the review, the rating of the PRT model for Outcome Data would change to 4 and the rating for Quality would change to 2. Also, additional information provided by the Alpine program supports an Operationalization rating of 5.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
