Roles, Strengths and Challenges of Using Robots in\nInterventions for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Huijnen, C. A. G. J., Lexis,\nM. A. S., Jansens, R., & de Witte, L. P. (2019). Roles, strengths and\nchallenges of using robots in interventions for children with autism spectrum\ndisorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49, <\/em>11-21. doi:\n10.1007\/s10803-018-3683-x <\/p>\n\n\n\n Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In the past decade, there has been an increase in studies\nresearching the utility of incorporating life-like robots into treatment for\nchildren with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Robots have been proposed as\nhelpful in several different ways, including diagnosis, treatment provider, and\nas a model for either desirable social behavior or for possible behavior of a\npeer. Despite emerging promising findings, robots are still rarely used within\ntreatments for children with ASD. <\/p>\n\n\n\n KASPAR (\u201cKinesics and Synchronization in Personal Assistant\nRobotics\u201d) is one type of life-like robot that is the size of a seated toddler\nand able to move its upper body (i.e., head, torso, arms, hands), make limited\nfacial expressions, and speak. KASPAR is remote controlled by a professional to\nsimulate that the robot is independently behaving. The present study was\ncompleted to get perspectives from professionals who work with individuals with\nASD about what roles they saw KASPAR filling in treatment, as well as any\nstrengths and challenges related to possible use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Who was involved?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Seventy professionals working with children with ASD in the\nNetherlands were included in the study, including teachers and assistants at\nspecial needs schools, psychologists, speech therapists, occupational therapists,\nphysiotherapists, psychomotor therapists, behavioral therapists, treatment\ncoordinators, and people working in care management. On average, these\nprofessionals had served children with ASD for 14 years. None of these\nprofessionals had prior knowledge of or experience in using robots in\ntreatment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Each professional participated in one of 12 focus group\nsessions, during which the group was asked to discuss their opinions for\npotential uses of KASPAR and the strengths or challenges to incorporating\nKASPAR into treatment. Focus group sessions were audio recorded and transcribed\nlater. Two researchers reviewed all transcriptions and developed themes from\ncontent. <\/p>\n\n\n\n What was the outcome?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The participants discussed six potential uses for KASPAR\nacross the focus group sessions. These included \u201cprovoker\u201d (spurs interest and\nmight increase likelihood child would engage), \u201creinforcer\u201d (providing praise\nwhen appropriate), \u201ctrainer\u201d (literally takes over as interventionist),\n\u201cmediator\u201d (supporting interaction with child with ASD and another person),\n\u201cprompter\u201d (specific, concrete, clear guidance), and \u201cdiagnostic information\nprovider\u201d(gather information on child\u2019s social strengths and weaknesses\nrelevant to diagnostic status). Strengths highlighted by the focus groups included\nindividualization, enjoyment by the child, predictability of responses, and\ngeneralization of treatment beyond an adult therapist. Challenges to using\nKASPAR included a limited range of social responses, lack of mobility, possible\nfearfulness of KASPAR for a child, and if successful a potential for poor\ngeneralization to other interactions beyond KASPAR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What are the strengths and limitations of the study?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Strengths: Participants included a large group of\nprofessionals that actively served children with ASD at the time of the study\nand were from a variety of organizations with long-term service experience. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Limitations: The perspectives of caregivers were not\nexamined. Findings represent the opinions of providers and do not necessarily\nreflect empirically-supported advantages and disadvantages of using KASPAR nor\nother robotic intervention systems. Also, since the study sample was from the\nNetherlands, it is unclear whether service professionals in other areas of the\nworld would share these same views.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What are the implications?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Given the response from providers regarding acceptability of\nusing robots in therapy, further research is warranted to assess possible roles\nKASPAR and other robots can serve in treatment to enhance outcomes for\nindividuals with ASD. The same considerations that have to be made in all\ntreatments (i.e., planning for maintenance and generalization, fading of\nprompts, transitioning roles, and promoting functional independence) will be\napplicable to investigations of robotic treatment supports.<\/p>\n