Research has shown that autistic children receiving ABA may exhibit significant gains that their comparison

group on measures of language, IQ and adaptive functioning. Hayward, Eikeseth, Gale, & Morgan (2008) examined the progress of autistic children after a one year treatment period. The children received an average of 36 hours per week of UCLA ABA intervention. The study compared an Intensive Clinic Based Treatment approach that provided all treatment personnel and the Intensive Parent Managed Treatment approach. This latter model provided intensive supervision only. All groups showed significant improvement in IQ, language comprehension, visual-spatial IQ, motor skills, expressive language and adaptive behaviour. The findings were the same with earlier studies that showed benefits of ABA in treatment of autistic children. Age factor was not a predictor of treatment gains or outcome. These findings were also reported in other studies by Lovaas & Smith (1988) and Eikeseth et al (2002, 2007). On the other hand, other studies have shown a relationship between age of intake and treatment outcome such as (Harris & Handleman, 2008). In this case more research to resolve these conflicting findings is needed. As much as the study by Hayward, Eikeseth, Gale, & Morgan (2008) showed positive effects in the one year of treatment, the authors contend that treatment should go on for more than one year for autistic children to reach their maximum potential and sustain these gains. According to Shea (2004), some proponents of EIBI treatment insist that for 47% of normal functioning to be achieved, the original treatment methods (Lovaas procedure) must be followed strictly. The intensity of intervention must be adhered to. The author argues that professionals and advocates of EIBI to seize from citing the original figure of 47% of normal functioning and the concept of recovered. Some studies have fallen short of achieving this benchmark figure. She further asserts that early intervention is crucial and beneficial for autistic

children. However, many children diagnosed with ASD remain with significant functional problems in their entire lifespan as Prof. Fein pointed out. There is a common consensus that several therapeutic and educational techniques embodied in the EIBI curriculum help children with ASD at most levels of functioning to enhance skills, relationships and interests. It is common knowledge that professionals and parents always have hope for autistic children to be recovered and exhibit normal functioning. However, the professional body should acknowledge to families of autistic children that although EIBI may be helpful, there is no sufficient evidence that it leads to normal functioning or recovery in 47% of its recipients (Shea, 2004). Remington et al (2007) found out that EIBI children who underwent treatment for two years manifested significant differences compared to those after one year. In general, the study showed that EIBI in autistic children carried out at home can result to significant improvements in the patients functioning. The problem that these authors posit is the difficulty in determining the factors that can best predict the effectiveness of EIBI. Moreover, it is difficult to determine the extended impact of the reported effects. Instead of posing very difficult questions such as if EIBI works or not, professionals suggest that smaller and answerable questions on the selection criteria should be asked. These questions should be asked in the form of an effective curricula, teaching methods and effective forms of programs that sustain the effects of EIBI after the expiry of the intervention period.