The earlier the better: An RCT of treatment timing effects for toddlers on the autism spectrum.

LAY ABSTRACT: Behavioral interventions that incorporate naturalistic, developmental strategies have been shown to improve outcomes for young children who receive an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis. Although there is broad consensus that children on the spectrum should begin supports as soon as possible, the empirical evidence for this is relatively limited and little is known about the optimal age to start autism-specific interventions. Our team conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the effects of starting intervention at different ages, using the Early Social Interaction (ESI) model, a parent-implemented intervention for toddlers on the spectrum. Participants included 82 autistic toddlers and their caregiver(s) who received 9 months of Individual-ESI and 9 months of Group-ESI, with the timing/order of these two treatment conditions randomized. Thus, families received the more intensive and individualized Individual-ESI at either 18 or 27 months of age. Results revealed that children who received Individual-ESI earlier showed greater treatment gains than those who received this intervention later. Gains were demonstrated in several areas, which included the use and understanding of language, social use of communication skills, and self-help skills. Importantly, these findings were specific to the intensive and individualized parent coaching model compared to group-based treatment, allowing us to rule out the possibility that these timing effects were due to children getting older rather than the treatment itself. Our results suggest that even a narrow window of 18 versus 27 months may have an impact on outcomes and underscore the importance of screening and evaluation as young as possible.

What the DSM-5 portends for research, diagnosis, and treatment of autism spectrum disorders.

In May 2013 the APA will release DSM-5, which will restructure the diagnostic classification for autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) into a single category. The proposed changes in DSM-5 aim to better reflect the current state of research by consistently identifying the core features in social/communication and restrictive and repetitive behaviors that are specific to ASDs. This review describes the empirical and theoretical bases of research in the nosology of ASDs, given the impending shift in DSM-5 diagnostic criteria. General issues in diagnosis and prevalence are described, with differences between DSM-IV and DSM-5 highlighted. To address concerns about the application of the proposed DSM-5 criteria, the current literature assessing the sensitivity and specificity of the proposed DSM-5 criteria is reviewed. Last, we discuss the implications of the changes in DSM-5 for the treatment of ASDs and recommend areas for future research.

Autism: from research to practice.

Autism is the most commonly studied of a spectrum of developmental disorders that are believed to be neurobiologically based but which, at this point, for lack of good biomarkers, are defined purely by behavior. In the last 20 years, the definition of autism has shifted in emphasis from extreme aloofness and positive signs of abnormality in repetitive and sensorimotor behaviors to a greater awareness of the importance of more subtle reciprocal social communication deficits as core features. Standard diagnostic instruments were developed for research purposes to acquire information both through caregiver interviews and direct clinical observation. Use of these instruments in clinical practice resulted in major improvements, which in turn affected research results. These results yielded further improvements that led to changes in clinical practice over time. The synergism between research and clinical practice in the understanding of autism is discussed.

Effect of language and task demands on the diagnostic effectiveness of the autism diagnostic observation schedule: the impact of module choice.

The ADOS characterizes socio-communicative deficits in autism spectrum disorders (ASD). In this study the effect of module choice on ADOS classification was examined. For 74 participants (52 autism, 22 PDD-NOS), Module 1 and Module 2 were administered in a single session. Fifty-one participants maintained ADOS classification, with 17 more impaired on M2 and 6 more impaired on M1. For 64 participants (25 autism, 39 PDD-NOS), Module 2 and Module 3 were administered. Thirty-nine participants maintained classification, with 24 more impaired on M3 and 1 more impaired on M2. As expected, more impairment was indicated when a module with more language and task demands was administered. Clinical judgment of the most appropriate module for administration was found to be important.