Unpacking the prevalence: A warning against overstating the recently narrowed gap for Black autistic youth.

Recent findings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network's 2020 prevalence report indicate that disparities in autism diagnoses between Black and White youth have narrowed, reflecting improved screening, awareness, and access to services (Maenner et al., 2023. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance Summaries (Washington, D.C.: 2002), 72, 1-14.). Claims of reducing disparities beyond prevalence rates, however, are not fully supported, as indicated by the reality that Black youth whose screenings indicate autistic traits are still not being referred for full evaluation or early intervention services at the same rate as their White peers (Major et al., 2020. Autism, 24, 1629-1638; Smith et al., 2020. Pediatrics, 145, S35-S46.). Black 8-year-olds identified as autistic still experience disparate educational placements (Waitoller et al., 2010. The Journal of Special Education. 44, 29-49.) where services may not be autism-specific or have Individual Education Plan goals only focused on "behavior problems" (Severini et al., 2018. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48, 3261-3272.), are served in the most restrictive environments (Skiba et al., 2006. Exceptional Children, 72, 411-424.) and lack consistent augmentative and alternative communication support (Pope et al., 2022. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 31, 2159-2174.). Additionally, ADMM researchers report consistent disparities in the identification of co-occurring intellectual disability where Black autistic children have significantly more co-occurrences than White autistic children. The purpose of this commentary is to first examine the assertion that the narrowed gap indicates, "…improved…access to services among historically underserved groups," (p. 9) (Maenner et al., 2023. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance Summaries (Washington, D.C.: 2002), 72, 1-14.). We will then recommend strategies to address the ongoing disparities.

Negative concord in child African American English: implications for specific language impairment.

In this study, African American English (AAE)-speaking children's comprehension of 2 different types of double negative sentences was examined and contrasted with that of a comparison group of Standard American English (SAE)-speaking children. The first type of double negative, negative concord, involves 2 negative elements in a sentence that are interpreted together as single negation. The second type of double negative, called true double negation, involves 2 negatives that are interpreted as independent negatives. A cross-sectional cohort of 61 (35 AAE, 26 SAE) typically developing children ranging in age from 5;2 (years;months) to 7;11 participated. The children responded to story-based grammatical judgment tasks that required them to differentiate between negative concord and true double negation. Results revealed no statistically significant differences between AAE- and SAE-speaking children in the way they interpreted negative concord and true double negation. However, there were significantly more correct responses to negative concord sentences across combined groups. In particular, the older children (i.e., 7-year-olds) produced more correct responses to negative concord than did the younger group (i.e., 5-year-olds). Explanations for these findings are framed in terms of children's knowledge about sentences with 2 negatives, the constraints affecting the interpretation of 2 negatives that include negative concord, and the clinical importance of negative concord for assessing specific language impairment in child AAE speakers.