139

Journal  of  ICSAR
ISSN (print): 2548-8619; ISSN (online): 2548-8600
Volume 2 Number 2 July 2018

The Effectiveness  of  Behavioral-Developmental Approach Intervention to Enhancing 
Verbal and Performance Cognitive Ability on Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders

Ernie Chairuni Siregara, Sunaryo Kartadinatab,  Zaenal Aliminc, Yoga Budhi Santosod

abcUniversitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia
dUniversitas Islam Nusantara, Indonesia
Email: erniecsiregar@student.upi.edu

Abstract: The purpose of this research is to discover the result of an intervention using a behavioral- 
developmental approach to verbal and performance cognitive ability of children with autism spectrum 
disorders. This study employed a within-group experiment using a single-subject A/B design. The 
intervention was given to two children under the age of four by combining learning activities whose 
curriculum was very well structured with play activities that could stimulate him to interact with others 
in a more natural setting. The intervention program was given by an educator and parents for 40 hours/ a 
week in twelve months. The results of the study revealed that the behavioral-developmental approach is 
effective in improving both verbal and performance cognitive ability. this research is expected to become 
an alternative intervention to improve cognitive ability in children with autism spectrum disorders.
Keywords: performance cognitive ability, verbal ability, autism spectrum disorder, behavioral-
development approach

INTRODUCTION

Currently, there two mainstream approaches in the 
treatment of children with autism spectrum disorders, 
there are behavioral and developmental approaches 
(Prizant & Wetherby, 1998; Greenspan & Wieder, 
2006; Siegel, 2010; Ross, 2012). Both approaches have 
two different viewpoints on philosophy, methods, and 
targets of treatment. 

According to pervasive disorders in children with 
autism spectrum disorders (ASD), there’s no single 
approach can deal with all the problems of children. 
To improve child development significantly and 
comprehensively, multiple approaches are required to 
deal with children in synergies because one approach 
can complement disadvantages of the other approach 
(Fey, 1986; Siegel, 2010, Nee, 2013). 

The wide variety of problems that exist in children, 
differences in learning speed, potential differences 
and learning problems in each child is a challenge in 
providing treatment to children with ASD (Siegel, 
2010). Using a strategy of intervention by combining 
a behavioral-development approach is an intervention 
that combines philosophy, methods, and techniques 
that exist in behavioral approaches and developmental 
approaches. 

Behavioral-development approach is done by 
combining the advantages of handling with existing 
methods on behavioral and developmental approaches. 
Techniques used in this strategy are techniques used 

in applied behavioral methods but the selection of 
materials appropriate to the stage of child development. 
This strategy involving educators, parents, and peers 
as well as integrating a structural-artificial and natural 
handling environment. Behavioral-developmental 
approach’s target not only develop cognitive abilities 
and shape functional learning behaviors such as 
behavioral approaches but also emphasize building 
interactions between children and parents, family and 
social  (Leaf et al., 2008; Matson, 2009; Farrel, 2012; 
Greenspan & Wieder, 2006; Ross, 2012). 

METHOD

The experimental research design used was the 
type Within Group/Individual Design in the form of 
Single-Subject Experiment with A/B Design.  Design 
of this study was chosen because the study subjects 
had a very wide diversity of problems and found it 
difficult to find research subjects with similar profiles, 
requiring individual analysis and minimizing the threat 
of internal validity (Cooper et al., 2007).

The participants of this study were not taken 
randomly and use Quasi-Experiment (Creswell, 2002). 
Research participants are two children (2) who had 
been diagnosed with ASD, had no physical problems 
and was less than four (4) years old in March 2016 
(based on the consideration that children under four 
have the transfer of learning ability better than children 
over the age of four (Lovaas, 1987).



140 Journal of ICSAR; Volume 2, Number 2, July 2018: 139-141

Table 1. Cognitive Ability 

C
O

G
N

IT
IV

E
 A

B
IL

IT
Y

A
sp

ec
t

Su
b 

A
sp

ec
t

First Partici-
pant

Second Par-
ticipant

B
ef

or
e

A
ft

er

In
cr

ea
se

B
ef

or
e

A
ft

er

In
cr

ea
se

V
er

ba
l

IQ

C o m m o n 
Knowledge 3 8 5 1 6 5

Verbal Con-
cept 3 5 2 3 3 -

Numeracy 2 7 5 2 9 7
Association 6 5 - 4 4 -
P r a c t i c a l 
Reasoning 4 6 2 4 3 -

Verbal IQ 60 76 16* 55 69 14*

Pe
rf

or
m

an
ce

 IQ

Memory 2 4 2 2 4 2
P r o b l e m 
solving 4 7 3 4 10 6

Visual mo-
toric 4 18 14 4 10 6

Concentra -
tion 9 19 10 4 11 7

Visual Per-
ception 7 12 5 4 3 -

Performance IQ 67 114 47* 55 97 42*

Overall IQ 60 93 33* 51 81 30*

test before the intervention (Anastasi & Urbina, 2007).

Educator, who has over-three-month experienced 
in giving intervention and parents, who received 40 
hours of training,  conduct intervention twelve (12) 
months in autism service center in Bandung City-West 
Java, Indonesia and child’s parent house. 

The intervention activities occurred in a classroom 
at the autism service center and at home for 30 hours/ a 
week or 6 hours/a day in 4 sessions (each session was 90 
minutes). The educator did his part at the autism service 
center, and the parent did theirs at home. To measure 
the cognitive ability, WPPSI (Wechsler Preschool and 
Primary Scale of Intelligence) test was used. The test 
was administered by administered by a professional 
psychologist. The WPPSI test was divided into two 
types of intelligence tests; one is to measure verbal 
comprehension (Verbal IQ), and the other to measure 
the spatial relational ability and non-verbal reasoning 
(Performance IQ) (Gregory, 2004). The results of the 
two aspect subtests, verbal IQ, and performance IQ, 
were interpreted in the forms of full-scale IQ scores.

The researcher would consider the intervention 
was adequately successful if after the intervention the 
child got a 10 point increase from baseline full-scale IQ 
score of the result of   WPPSI in table 1.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 

Findings

Participant 1
There is an increase of 16 points on verbal 

intelligence’s first participant after receiving the 
intervention. That means first participant’s verbal 
comprehension skills, including the ability to learn 
verbal materials and apply verbal skills to solve 
various problems-increased significantly (> 10 
points). However, point increase does not change 
verbal intelligence criteria, so first participant’s verbal 
intelligence norm remains at very low criteria compared 
to children of the same age.

Due to posttest, the first participant gets 47 points 
on performance intelligence. That means the ability 
and understanding of space, including non-verbal 
reasoning, image/space imagery, and the ability to 
process picture information significantly increased (> 
10 points). Point increase also increases the criteria of 
first participant’s performance intelligence, from very 
low to above average than children of the same age.

In overall intelligence, there’s a 33 point increase 
after being handled. That means the ability of the 
first participant in facing the environment effectively 
increases significantly (> 10 points). In addition, the 
first participant ‘s overall intelligence criteria rise, 
from very low criteria become average criteria than the 
average child with the same age.

Participant 2
There’s an increase of 14 points on verbal 

intelligence after receiving treatment. That means first 
participant’s verbal comprehension skills, including the 
ability to learn verbal materials and apply verbal skills 
to solve various problems increased significantly(> 10 
points). However, point increase does not change verbal 
intelligence criteria, so second participant’s verbal 
intelligence remains at very low criteria compared to 
children of the same age.

Due to posttest, second participants get 42 points 
on performance intelligence. That means the ability 
and understanding of space, including non-verbal 
reasoning, image/space imagery, and the ability to 
process picture information significantly increased (> 
10 points). There are increases criteria of the second 
participant’ s performance intelligence, from very low 
to average than children of the same age.

In overall intelligence, there’s a 30 point 
increase after being handled. That means the ability 
of the second participant in facing the environment 
effectively increases significantly (>10 points). In 
addition to the increase in numbers, second participant 
‘s overall intelligence criteria are on the rise, from very 



141Ernie C. S, Sunaryo K,  Zaenal A, Yoga Budhi S, Effectiveness  of  Behavioral-Developmental . . . .

low become low average criteria than the average child 
with the same age.

Discussion

Based on results,  intervention with behavioral-
developmental approach can improve cognitive 
abilities significantly. Combination of a structural 
learning-artificial and a natural play setting can develop 
the child’s cognitive abilities. Involving parents and 
educators can increase children’s motivation to learn 
from the environment. Once the child has mastered 
the language skills, the child is included in the school 
activities and interacts with peers to maintain the 
behavior of the children who have been formed. 

The child addressed in this study demonstrated 
similar cognitive abilities to the child’s age and 
demonstrated his ability to manage himself well 
enough, showed interest in the environment, was able to 
establish attachment relationships with others, was able 
to convey his thoughts and feelings in simple form, was 
able to express ideas, and two-way communication.

CONCLUSION

The behavioral-developmental approach is effective in 
improving both verbal and performance cognitive ability. 
The child demonstrated similar cognitive abilities to the 
child’s age and demonstrated his ability to manage himself 
well enough, showed interest in the environment, was able 
to establish attachment relationships with others, was able to 
convey his thoughts and feelings in simple form, was able to 
express ideas and two-way communication.

This research is expected to become an alternative 
intervention to improve cognitive ability in children with 
autism spectrum disorders.

REFERENCES

Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (2007). Tes Psikologi, Edisi 
Ketujuh (Terjemahan). Jakarta: PT Indeks.

Cooper, J. O. H., Heward, T. E., William, L., Cooper, J. 
O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied 
behavior analysis. New Jersey: Pearson 

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, 
conducting, and evaluating quantitative (pp. 146-
166). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Farrel, M. (2012). The special education handbook: an 
AZ guide. Routledge. 

Fey, M. E. (1986). Language intervention with young 
children. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.

Greenspan, S. T., & Wieder, S. (2006). The Child with 
Special Needs (Anak Berkebutuhan Khusus). 
Terjemahan). Jakarta Penerbit Yayasan Ayo Main. 

Gregory, R. J. (2004). Psychological testing: History, 
principles, and applications. Allyn & Bacon.

Leaf, R. B., Taubman, M. T., & McEachin, J. (2008). 
Sense and nonsense in the behavioral treatment 
of autism: It has to be said. New York, NY: DRL 
Books.

Lovaas, O. I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal 
educational and intellectual functioning in young 
autistic children. Journal of consulting and 
clinical psychology, 55(1), 3.

Matson, J. L. (2009). Applied behavior analysis for 
children with autism spectrum disorders. New 
York: Springer.

Nee, J. E. (2013). Behavior & Developmental Treatment 
Models for Autism Spectrum Disorders: Factors 
Guiding Clinician Preference and Perceptions.

Prizant, B. M., & Wetherby, A. M. (1998). Understanding 
the Continuum of Discrete-Trial Traditional 
Behavioral to Social-Pragmatic Developmental 
Approaches in Communication Enhancement for 
Young Children With Autism/Pdd. Seminars in 
Speech and Language, 19(4),  329-353.

Ross, R. K. (2012).  ABA and DIR/Floortime:  
Compatible or Incompatible?. West Coast 
Conference  on Autism. Cambridge Center for 
Behavioral Studies:  Buellton-CA. 

Siegel, B. (2010). ABA is Too Much: an Overview of 
Treatment Recommendations for ASD. 9th Annual 
UCSF Developmental Disabilities Conference. 
San Francisco