Autism Treatment Philosophy Questionnaire – Adapted Version
Here in this post, we are sharing the “Autism Treatment Philosophy Questionnaire – Adapted Version”. You can read psychometric and Author information. We have thousands of Scales and questionnaires in our collection (See Scales and Questionnaires). You can demand us any scale and questionnaires related to psychology through our community, and we will provide you with a short time. Keep visiting Psychology Roots.
About Autism Treatment Philosophy Questionnaire – Adapted Version
The Autism Treatment Philosophy Questionnaire-Adapted (ATPQ-A) was used to assess participants’ commitment to TEACCH and LEAP model philosophy. This questionnaire is an adaptation of the Autism Treatment Philosophy Questionnaire (Jennett et al. 2003). The research team worked with the TEACCH model developers to confirm items that reflect the TEACCH philosophy and with the LEAP model developers to add items that reflect the LEAP philosophy.
The questionnaire is 27 items rated on a on a 6-point continuum (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree) relative to how well that item fit their commitment to that teaching approach. There are 14 items reflecting TEACCH philosophy and 13 items reflecting LEAP philosophy, yielding a TEACCH commitment score, a LEAP commitment score, and an overall commitment score. The questionnaire was field tested with LEAP, TEACCH, and HQSEP teachers in NC, CO, and FL in the first year of the larger project. A total of 154 teachers (78 TEACCH, 20 LEAP, and 54 HQSEP) completed the measure. Psychometric analysis indicated coefficient alpha reliability for the 27 items of the scale to be 0.957.
The internal consistency for both the TEACCH subscale score (Cronbach’s a = 0.92) and the LEAP subscale score (Cronbach’s a = 0.91) were adequate. Discriminant analyses also indicated that the omnibus test for the LEAP subscale was significant, F(2, 147) = 4.23, p\ .05, however, it only discriminated LEAP teachers from TEACCH teachers, but not HQSEP teachers. Lastly, discriminant analyses indicated that the omnibus test for the TEACCH subscale was not significant, F(2, 147) = 1.13, p = n.s. Thus, the discriminant validity of the TEACCH subscale was not supported.