Determining Associations Between Intervention Amount and Outcomes for Young Autistic Children: A Meta-Analysis.

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.

Barriers to Providing Transitional Supports for Autistic Students: Insights of School Professionals.

Following high school exit, many autistic young adults are not enrolled in post-secondary education or employed, and few are engaged in community activities. This disengagement among autistic young adults may be a result of the limited or inadequate supports provided to autistic transition-age youth in schools. Therefore, the purpose of the current study is to explore how school professionals report preparing transition-age autistic youth for adulthood and the barriers that make it difficult for school professionals to provide quality transition services. We surveyed 21 school professionals who work with transition-age autistic students. The survey solicited descriptions of transition supports provided to youth, and barriers that make it difficult for school professionals to provide high quality transition supports. Qualitative content analysis was used to identify themes from the data. Participants described barriers related to the autistic youth they taught or supported, their families, the classroom environment, and the community. Barriers were either framed as deficits inherent to autistic students and their families, or larger systemic issues that make it challenging to implement high quality transition supports. We recommend implementation of autism-specific trainings within teacher preparation programs and school districts, professional development opportunities that create spaces for educators to challenge and resist deficit views of autism, and development of strengths-based transition programs that are implemented by school-based professionals who work with autistic students.

Problems with "problem behavior": A secondary systematic review of intervention research on transition-age autistic youth.

LAY ABSTRACT: In a previous study, we looked at research done on strategies to support autistic people who were between 14 and 22 years old. For this study, we looked at all of the studies in our previous study that tried to decrease or stop autistic people from doing certain things-many researchers call these things "problem behavior." There were 48 studies that tried to reduce problem behavior, and most of them used strategies like prompting and reinforcement to try get autistic people to change their behavior. We found many things wrong with these studies. Most of them did not define the group of behaviors they were trying to stop autistic people from doing. None of the studies looked at whether any side effects happened when they tried the strategy they were studying. Also, most of the studies tried to stop autistic people from doing behaviors that probably were not harmful, like stereotypic behavior. Most of the studies did not say how they decided that the behaviors they tried to stop were a problem for the autistic people in the study, and most studies did not try to figure out why the autistic people in the study did the behaviors the researchers were trying to stop them from doing.

Evidence-b(i)ased practice: Selective and inadequate reporting in early childhood autism intervention research.

LAY ABSTRACT: When researchers fail to report their findings or only report some of their findings, it can make it difficult for clinicians to provide effective intervention recommendations. However, no one has examined whether this is a problem in studies of early childhood autism interventions. We studied how researchers that study early childhood autism interventions report their findings. We found that most researchers did not register their studies when they were supposed to (before the start of the study), and that many researchers did not provide all of the needed information in the registration. We also found that researchers frequently did not publish their findings when their studies were complete. When we looked at published reports, we found that many of the studies did not report enough information, and that many studies were reported differently from their registrations, suggesting that researchers were selectively reporting positive outcomes and ignoring or misrepresenting less positive outcomes. Because we found so much evidence that researchers are failing to report their findings quickly and correctly, we suggested some practical changes to make it better.

Time to level up: A systematic review of interventions aiming to reduce stigma toward autistic people.

LAY ABSTRACT: How non-autistic people think about autistic people impacts autistic people negatively. Many studies developed trainings to reduce autism stigma. The existing trainings vary a lot in terms of study design, content, and reported effectiveness. This means that a review studying how the studies have been conducted is needed. We also looked at the quality of these studies. We collected and studied 26 studies that tried to reduce stigma toward autistic people. The studies often targeted White K-12 students and college students. Most trainings were implemented once. Trainings frequently used video or computer. Especially, recent studies tended to use online platforms. The study quality was poor for most studies. Some studies made inaccurate claims about the intervention effectiveness. Studies did not sufficiently address study limitations. Future trainings should aim to figure out why and how interventions work. How intervention changes people's behavior and thoughts should be studied. Researchers should study whether the training can change the societal stigma. Also, researchers should use a better study design.

Autism intervention meta-analysis of early childhood studies (Project AIM): updated systematic review and secondary analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the breadth and quality of evidence supporting commonly recommended early childhood autism interventions and their estimated effects on developmental outcomes. DESIGN: Updated systematic review and meta-analysis (autism intervention meta-analysis; Project AIM). DATA SOURCES: A 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 STUDIES: Any controlled group study testing the effects of any non-pharmacological intervention on any outcome in young autistic children younger than 8 years. REVIEW METHODS: Newly 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSION: The 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.

Anti-ableism and scientific accuracy in autism research: a false dichotomy.

It was recently argued that autism researchers committed to rejecting ableist frameworks in their research may sacrifice "scientifically accurate" conceptualizations of autism. In this perspective piece, we argue that: (a) anti-ableism vs. scientific accuracy is a false dichotomy, (b) there is no ideology-free science that has claim to scientific accuracy, and (c) autism science has a history of false leads in part because of unexamined ableist ideologies that undergird researcher framings and interpretations of evidence. To illustrate our claims, we discuss several avenues of autism research that were promoted as scientific advances, but were eventually debunked or shown to have much less explanatory value than initially proposed. These research programs have involved claims about autism etiology, the nature of autism and autistic characteristics, and autism intervention. Common to these false leads have been ableist assumptions about autism that inform researcher perspectives. Negative impacts of this work have been mitigated in some areas of autism research, but these perspectives continue to exert influence on the lives of autistic people, including the availability of services, discourses about autism, and sociocultural conceptualizations of autistic people. Examining these false leads may help current researchers better understand how ableism may negatively influence their areas of inquiry. We close with a positive argument that promoting anti-ableism can be done in tandem with increasing scientific accuracy.

The Interactional Structure of Accounts During Small Group Discussions Among Autistic Children Receiving Special Education Support in Finland.

Through a conversation analytic approach, we investigate the emergence of accounts provided by autistic children in small-group discussions. Nine Finnish children (7-10 years old) attending school with special support participated in a five-month-duration pedagogical practice purposefully designed to enhance children's participation in groups. We analyzed videos of sharing circles where children discussed their ideas and interests. Our data show three different account structures, which created different modes of children's participation and gradually changed how they positioned themselves in the group. Results show how accounts can create different focuses of attention; reveal children's reflections on what is relevant to them, and how to promote the exchange of ideas within a small group. Implications for the development of educational practices are discussed.

Empirically-Derived Effect Size Distributions of Interventions for Young Children on the Autism Spectrum.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to present a set of empirically derived effect size distributions to provide field-based benchmarks for interpreting the observed effects of interventions for young children on the autism spectrum, and for planning future studies. METHOD: We generated effect size distributions and reported quartile values for each by outcome domain, and by boundedness, proximity, and assessment approach using 1552 effect sizes from 144 early childhood autism intervention studies gathered for a previously published meta-analysis. RESULTS: Quartile values represent considerable heterogeneity in effect size distributions across outcome domains, as well as variability as a function of outcome boundedness, proximity, and assessment approach. CONCLUSIONS: Our results serve as field- and outcome-specific benchmarks (e.g., contextual guides for small, medium, and large effects) that will help autism intervention researchers easily incorporate information from relevant prior empirical literature when conducting power analyses to plan for future studies. Benchmarks will also assist researchers seeking to interpret the magnitude of observed effects in clinical trials relative to the broader distribution of intervention effects on similar outcomes. Nuanced discussions that contextualize study findings in light of relevant empirical benchmarks will better assist practitioners in understanding the magnitude and scope of demonstrated change relative to studies with similar outcomes and selecting interventions for clinical practice. We discuss the limitations of these data, our analyses, as well as directions for future work.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of associations between primarily non-autistic people's characteristics and attitudes toward autistic people.

This systematic review includes a narrative synthesis and meta-analysis of research on the associations between primarily non-autistic people's characteristics and their attitudes toward autistic people. Of 47 studies included in the narrative synthesis, White undergraduate students were surveyed most frequently. Demographic characteristics were the factors most frequently tested for associations with attitudes, followed by contact-related factors (i.e., quantity and quality), knowledge about autism, trait and personality factors, and other factors that did not fit into a single category. Internal consistency was not reported for some instruments assessing raters' characteristics; some instruments had alpha levels lower than 0.70, and many characteristics of raters were measured using one-item measures. Moreover, theoretical motivations for investigating the raters' characteristics were rarely provided. A total of 36 studies were included in the meta-analysis, which showed that attitudes toward autistic people were significantly associated with participants' gender, knowledge about autism, and quality and quantity of their previous contact with autistic people, but not with their age or autistic traits. These findings indicate a need for more studies that focus on context-related characteristics (e.g., institutional variables such as support/commitment to inclusion), use reliable instruments to measure non-autistic people's characteristics, and situate their investigation in a theoretical framework.

An evaluation of intervention research for transition-age autistic youth.

LAY ABSTRACT: In this study, we assess the quality of intervention research that focuses on autistic youth who are 14-22 years old. We found 193 different studies on this topic, and carefully reviewed them. Most of these studies tested strategies that were behavioral. This means that they used procedures like prompting and rewards to change participants' behavior. We found that the majority of studies had problems that make it hard to determine whether or not the intervention worked. The problems related to how researchers designed their studies, and how they measured the study outcomes. We also found that researchers rarely tried to find out if the strategies they studied had unintended negative effects for participants. Because of these issues, we make suggestions for how researchers might design better studies that will let people know how well the strategies worked.

Mechanisms by which Early Eye Gaze to the Mouth During Multisensory Speech Influences Expressive Communication Development in Infant Siblings of Children with and without Autism.

Looking to the mouth of a talker early in life predicts expressive communication. We hypothesized that looking at a talker's mouth may signal that infants are ready for increased supported joint engagement and that it subsequently facilitates prelinguistic vocal development and translates to broader gains in expressive communication. We tested this hypothesis in 50 infants aged 6-18 months with heightened and general population-level likelihood of autism diagnosis (Sibs-autism and Sibs-NA; respectively). We measured infants' gaze to a speaker's face using an eye tracking task, supported joint engagement during parent-child free play sessions, vocal complexity during a communication sample, and broader expressive communication. Looking at the mouth was indirectly associated with expressive communication via increased higher-order supported joint engagement and vocal complexity. This indirect effect did not vary according to sibling status. This study provides preliminary insights into the mechanisms by which looking at the mouth may influence expressive communication development.

Sequence organization of autistic children's play with caregivers: Rethinking follow-in directives.

LAY ABSTRACT: In this article we use a qualitative method, conversation analysis, to examine videos of caregivers interacting with their young autistic children who are in the early phases of language learning. Conversation analysis involves preparation of detailed transcripts of video data, which are then analyzed together to understand how interactional moves (e.g. talk, gestures, and physical conduct) are linked with prior and subsequent interactional moves. We analyzed data from 15 participants, and focused on instances when caregivers made a proposal about something the child was playing with. In previous research, similar instances have been referred to as "follow-in directives." We found that these proposals were embedded in sequences that had a similar structure, and were prefaced with a 'pre-proposal'; where the caregiver established the child's interest in a joint activity and signaled the upcoming proposal. The caregiver's talk was also provided in such a way that there was a clear "slot" for the child's turn, which made it easy for the child's actions to become part of an interactional sequence. In addition, proposal sequences were very negotiable-the caregivers do not usually insist that the child follow through on the proposal, only that they produce an action that could be taken as a response. Finally, there were some instances where the child's turn was very precisely timed to occur right at the end of a caregiver's proposal; this precise timing could signal the child's understanding of how interactional turn-taking works. We suggest that this method of examining caregiver-child interactions provides new insights into how interactions proceed, which could be useful for future intervention research.

Studies of autistic traits in the general population are not studies of autism.

Studies of autistic traits in the general population are becoming increasingly prevalent. In this letter to the editor, we caution researchers against framing and interpreting studies of autistic traits in the general population as extending to autism and implore them to be clear about when their study sample does and does not include autistic participants.

Evaluating evidence-based practice in light of the boundedness and proximity of outcomes: Capturing the scope of change.

Evidence-based practice (EBP) reviews abound in early childhood autism intervention research. These reviews seek to describe and evaluate the evidence supporting the use of specific educational and clinical practices, but give little attention to evaluating intervention outcomes in terms of the extent to which they reflect change that extends beyond the exact targets and contexts of intervention. We urge consideration of these outcome characteristics, which we refer to as "proximity" and "boundedness," as key criteria in evaluating and describing the scope of change effected by EBPs, and provide an overview and illustration of these concepts as they relate to early childhood autism intervention research. We hope this guidance will assist future researchers in selecting and evaluating intervention outcomes, as well as in making important summative determinations of the evidence base for this population. LAY SUMMARY: Recent reviews have come to somewhat different conclusions regarding the evidence base for interventions geared toward autistic children, perhaps because such reviews vary in the degree to which they consider the types of outcome measures used in past studies testing the effects of treatments. Here, we provide guidance regarding characteristics of outcome measures that research suggests are particularly important to consider when evaluating the extent to which an intervention constitutes "evidence-based practice."

Pervasive Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest in Applied Behavior Analysis Autism Literature.

Many autistic people (including researchers and non-researchers) are becoming increasingly involved in, and increasingly critical of, autism intervention research. They have expressed concerns regarding applied behavior analysis (ABA) interventions on a number of grounds, one of which is the prevalence of conflicts of interests (COIs) among autism intervention researchers. These concerns are now also being addressed by non-autistic researchers. COIs can introduce bias into the research process, and allow researchers to demonstrate positive effects for interventions that are not actually effective. Despite these concerns, there are no studies to date that examine the prevalence of COIs in behavioral journals. Because ABA services are routinely provided to autistic people in the United States as a means to address difficulties experienced by autistic people, this is an important area of investigation. We tallied author COIs in articles published over a 1-year period that tested, commented on, or reviewed ABA autism intervention strategies, extracted from eight journals devoted to publishing behavioral research. We coded included studies for COIs related to researcher employment as an ABA clinical provider or a training consultant to ABA clinical providers. We found that 84% of studies had at least one author with this type of COI, but they were only disclosed as COIs in 2% of studies. Additionally, 87% of studies with statements claiming the authors did not have COIs, were authored by researchers found to have clinical/training consultancy COIs. Pervasive, undisclosed COIs likely lead to researcher bias, and could at least partially account for persistent poor quality research in this area. The high prevalence of COIs among this research corroborates the concerns expressed by many autistic people. The autism community - including autistic people, autism researchers, and other stakeholders - should be aware of the prevalence of undisclosed COIs in this literature and take this into account when using, providing, or recommending ABA services.

Understanding the Effects of Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Interventions: A Project AIM Meta-analysis.

We examined the quality of evidence supporting the effects of Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Interventions (NBDIs) for facilitating change in young children with autism. We also investigated whether effects varied as a function of specific features of the intervention, samples, and outcomes measured. Twenty-seven studies testing the effects of NDBIs were extracted from data collected for the Autism Intervention Meta-analysis (Project AIM), a comprehensive meta-analysis of group design, nonpharmacological intervention studies for children with autism aged 0-8 years. We extracted effect sizes for 454 outcomes from these studies for use in meta-regression analyses testing associations between intervention effects and mean participant chronological age, language age, autism symptomatology, percentage of sample reported as male, cumulative intervention intensity, interventionist, outcome boundedness, outcome proximity, and risk of parent/teacher training correlated measurement error. The extant literature on NDBIs documents effects on social communication, language, play, and cognitive outcomes. However, our confidence in the positive and significant summary effects for these domains is somewhat limited by methodological concerns. Intervention effects were larger for context-bound outcomes (relative to generalized), and for proximal outcomes (relative to distal). Our results indicate that NDBIs have promise as an approach for supporting development for some, but not all of the core and related features of autism in early childhood. Confidence in summary effect estimates is limited by study quality concerns, particularly an overreliance on measures subject to high detection bias. The results of this review support the use of proximity and boundedness as indicators of the limits of intervention effects. LAY SUMMARY: Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Interventions may increase language, social communication, play skills, and cognition in young children with autism, but these increases are largest for skills directly targeted by the intervention, and in contexts that are similar to that of the intervention. These conclusions are tempered by some concerns regarding research design across the studies that have been conducted to date. Autism Res 2021, 14: 817-834. © 2021 International Society for Autism Research and Wiley Periodicals LLC.