Responds to "Autistic Recovery? An Analysis and Critique of the Empirical Evidence on the Early Intervention Project" (Gresham and MacMillan), which criticizes research showing the effectiveness of the UCLA Youth Autism Project program for children with autism. The article's misunderstandings are discussed and the program is explained. (CR)

Responds to "The UCLA Young Autism Project: A Reply to Gresham and MacMillan" (Smith and Lovaas), which criticized a review questioning the effectiveness of an intervention for children with autism. The Smith and Lovass article is described as defensive, factually inaccurate, and as not adequately addressing the question of external validity.…

This response to an article on recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education identified by the Council for Exceptional Children's Division for Early Childhood raises concerns about the characteristics of the validation sample, the discrepancy between acceptance and use of recommended practices, and implications for…

This response to an article on recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education identified by the Council for Exceptional Children's Division for Early Childhood raises concerns about consensus as a legitimate method for identifying recommended practices, the significance of inclusion of a practice, and separation of…

Comments on an article by Macy et al. The authors supports the potential use of the Assessment, Evaluation and Programming System for Infants and Children (AEPS:E) as an instrument for determining eligibility with toddler-aged children (18 to 36 months). Much work remains to be done before the AEPS:E should be recommended for use in determining…