It should be noted that for six of the 30 CTMs, the information from model developers was obtained through email communication rather than telephone interviews as originally stated in the paper. Also, since publication of this article, information to which we did not have access at the time of the review became available. An article by Baker-Ericzen et al. (
2007), which examined outcomes for the Pivotal Response Treatment (PRT) model, was published shortly after we had concluded collecting articles for our review. If we had access to the article at the time of the review, the rating of the PRT model for Outcome Data would change to 4 and the rating for Quality would change to 2. Also, additional information provided by the Alpine program supports an Operationalization rating of 5. …
