Search

IMPORTANCE: Health professionals routinely recommend intensive interventions (ie, 20-40 hours per week) for autistic children. However, primary research backing this recommendation is sparse and plagued by methodological flaws. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether different metrics of intervention amount are associated with intervention effects on any developmental domain for young autistic children. DATA SOURCES: A large corpus of studies taken from a recent meta-analysis (with a search date of November 2021) of early interventions for autistic children. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were eligible if they reported a quasi-experimental or randomized clinical trial testing the effects of a nonpharmacological intervention on any outcome in participant samples comprising more than 50% autistic children 8 years or younger. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were independently extracted by multiple coders. Meta-regression models were constructed to determine whether each index of intervention amount was associated with effect sizes for each intervention type, while controlling for outcome domain, outcome proximity, age of participants, study design, and risk of detection bias. Data were analyzed from June 2023 to February 2024. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary predictor of interest was intervention amount, quantified using 3 different metrics (daily intensity, duration, and cumulative intensity). The primary outcomes of interest were gains in any developmental domain, quantified by Hedges g effect sizes. RESULTS: A total of 144 studies including 9038 children (mean [SD] age, 49.3 [17.2] months; mean [SD] percent males, 82.6% [12.7%]) were included in this analysis. None of the meta-regression models evidenced a significant, positive association between any index of intervention amount and intervention effect size when considered within intervention type. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Findings of this meta-analysis do not support the assertion that intervention effects increase with increasing amounts of intervention. Health professionals recommending interventions should be advised that there is little robust evidence supporting the provision of intensive intervention.

For individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who have limited to no vocal speech abilities, mobile augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) technology provides opportunities for communication with those around them. Interventionists can incorporate evidence-based practices into AAC instruction to heighten the efficacy of its intervention. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify and evaluate the evidence-based practices that have been employed to date in AAC intervention research for individuals with ASD using mobile AAC technology. Thirty-eight studies with 106 total participants met inclusion criteria. Results indicated that many strategies including prompting, time delay, reinforcement, differential reinforcement, discrete trial training, naturalistic intervention, modeling, peer-mediated instruction, task analysis, and parent-implemented intervention have been used effectively within the context of AAC intervention. Quality indicators, communication behavior types targeted for intervention, participant characteristics, and type of mobile AAC technology were reviewed. Implications for clinicians and guidance for instructional planning are discussed including the use of multiple evidence-based practices and ample opportunities for skill demonstration. Suggestions for further research include an increased focus on adolescent or adult participants, community contexts, variation of communicative functions, and application of other evidence-based strategies.

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of school-based social interaction interventions for adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). All 27 studies meeting predetermined inclusion criteria utilized single-case designs. Peer-mediated interventions, peer networks, behavioral skills training, and the teaching interaction procedure were the most frequently utilized strategies and produced large effects for lower, moderate, and higher functioning adolescents with ASD. Teachers rarely implemented interventions, though large effects were reported when they served as intervention agents. Future research concerning the acceptability and feasibility of using social interaction interventions in the classroom is needed in order to facilitate evidence-based practice. Additionally, research that targets more complex and nuanced social behaviors and assesses collateral effects such as academic performance and friendship quality appears warranted.

ObjectiveTo summarize the breadth and quality of evidence supporting commonly recommended early childhood autism interventions and their estimated effects on developmental outcomes.DesignUpdated systematic review and meta-analysis (autism intervention meta-analysis; Project AIM).Data sourcesA search was conducted in November 2021 (updating a search done in November 2017) of the following databases and registers: Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Plus with full text, Education Source, Educational Administration Abstracts, ERIC, Medline, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, PsycINFO, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and SocINDEX with full text, Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesAny controlled group study testing the effects of any non-pharmacological intervention on any outcome in young autistic children younger than 8 years.Review methodsNewly identified studies were integrated into the previous dataset and were coded for participant, intervention, and outcome characteristics. Interventions were categorized by type of approach (such as behavioral, developmental, naturalistic developmental behavioral intervention, and technology based), and outcomes were categorized by domain (such as social communication, adaptive behavior, play, and language). Risks of bias were evaluated following guidance from Cochrane. Effects were estimated for all intervention and outcome types with sufficient contributing data, stratified by risk of bias, using robust variance estimation to account for intercorrelation of effects within studies and subgroups.ResultsThe search yielded 289 reports of 252 studies, representing 13 304 participants and effects for 3291 outcomes. When contributing effects were restricted to those from randomized controlled trials, significant summary effects were estimated for behavioral interventions on social emotional or challenging behavior outcomes (Hedges’ g=0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.11 to 1.06; P=0.02), developmental interventions on social communication (0.28, 0.12 to 0.44; P=0.003); naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions on adaptive behavior (0.23, 0.02 to 0.43; P=0.03), language (0.16, 0.01 to 0.31; P=0.04), play (0.19, 0.02 to 0.36; P=0.03), social communication (0.35, 0.23 to 0.47; P<0.001), and measures of diagnostic characteristics of autism (0.38, 0.17 to 0.59; P=0.002); and technology based interventions on social communication (0.33, 0.02 to 0.64; P=0.04) and social emotional or challenging behavior outcomes (0.57, 0.04 to 1.09; P=0.04). When effects were further restricted to exclude caregiver or teacher report outcomes, significant effects were estimated only for developmental interventions on social communication (0.31, 0.13 to 0.49; P=0.003) and naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions on social communication (0.36, 0.23 to 0.49; P<0.001) and measures of diagnostic characteristics of autism (0.44, 0.20 to 0.68; P=0.002). When effects were then restricted to exclude those at high risk of detection bias, only one significant summary effect was estimated—naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions on measures of diagnostic characteristics of autism (0.30, 0.03 to 0.57; P=0.03). Adverse events were poorly monitored, but possibly common.ConclusionThe available evidence on interventions to support young autistic children has approximately doubled in four years. Some evidence from randomized controlled trials shows that behavioral interventions improve caregiver perception of challenging behavior and child social emotional functioning, and that technology based interventions support proximal improvements in specific social communication and social emotional skills. Evidence also shows that developmental interventions improve social communication in interactions with caregivers, and naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions improve core challenges associated with autism, particularly difficulties with social communication. However, potential benefits of these interventions cannot be weighed against the potential for adverse effects owing to inadequate monitoring and reporting.