The review shows that overall there is a positive effect of speech and language therapy interventions for children with expressive phonological and expressive vocabulary difficulties. The evidence for expressive syntax difficulties is more mixed, and there is a need for further research to investigate intervention for receptive language difficulties. There is a large degree of heterogeneity in the results, and the sources of this need to be investigated.

A meta-analysis was carried out of interventions for children with primary developmental speech and language delays/disorders. The data were categorized depending on the control group used in the study (no treatment, general stimulation, or routine speech and language therapy) and were considered in terms of the effects of intervention on expressive and receptive phonology, syntax, and vocabulary. The outcomes used in the analysis were dependent on the aims of the study; only the primary effects of intervention are considered in this review. These were investigated at the level of the target of therapy, measures of overall linguistic development, and broader measures of linguistic functioning taken from parent report or language samples. Thirty-six articles reporting 33 different trials were found. Of these articles, 25 provided sufficient information for use in the meta-analyses; however, only 13 of these, spanning 25 years, were considered to be sufficiently similar to be combined. The results indicated that speech and language therapy might be effective for children with phonological or expressive vocabulary difficulties. There was mixed evidence concerning the effectiveness of intervention for children with expressive syntax difficulties and little evidence available considering the effectiveness of intervention for children with receptive language difficulties. No significant differences were found between interventions administered by trained parents and those administered by clinicians. The review identified longer duration (>8 weeks) of therapy as being a potential factor in good clinical outcomes. A number of gaps in the evidence base are identified.

BackgroundThe needs of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are complex and this is reflected in the number and diversity of outcomes assessed and measurement tools used to collect evidence about children’s progress. Relevant outcomes include improvement in core ASD impairments, such as communication, social awareness, sensory sensitivities and repetitiveness; skills such as social functioning and play; participation outcomes such as social inclusion; and parent and family impact.ObjectivesTo examine the measurement properties of tools used to measure progress and outcomes in children with ASD up to the age of 6 years. To identify outcome areas regarded as important by people with ASD and parents.MethodsThe MeASURe (Measurement in Autism Spectrum disorder Under Review) research collaboration included ASD experts and review methodologists. We undertook systematic review of tools used in ASD early intervention and observational studies from 1992 to 2013; systematic review, using the COSMIN checklist (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) of papers addressing the measurement properties of identified tools in children with ASD; and synthesis of evidence and gaps. The review design and process was informed throughout by consultation with stakeholders including parents, young people with ASD, clinicians and researchers.ResultsThe conceptual framework developed for the review was drawn from the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, including the domains ‘Impairments’, ‘Activity Level Indicators’, ‘Participation’, and ‘Family Measures’. In review 1, 10,154 papers were sifted – 3091 by full text – and data extracted from 184; in total, 131 tools were identified, excluding observational coding, study-specific measures and those not in English. In review 2, 2665 papers were sifted and data concerning measurement properties of 57 (43%) tools were extracted from 128 papers. Evidence for the measurement properties of the reviewed tools was combined with information about their accessibility and presentation. Twelve tools were identified as having the strongest supporting evidence, the majority measuring autism characteristics and problem behaviour. The patchy evidence and limited scope of outcomes measured mean these tools do not constitute a ‘recommended battery’ for use. In particular, there is little evidence that the identified tools would be good at detecting change in intervention studies. The obvious gaps in available outcome measurement include well-being and participation outcomes for children, and family quality-of-life outcomes, domains particularly valued by our informants (young people with ASD and parents).ConclusionsThis is the first systematic review of the quality and appropriateness of tools designed to monitor progress and outcomes of young children with ASD. Although it was not possible to recommend fully robust tools at this stage, the review consolidates what is known about the field and will act as a benchmark for future developments. With input from parents and other stakeholders, recommendations are made about priority targets for research.Future workPriorities include development of a tool to measure child quality of life in ASD, and validation of a potential primary outcome tool for trials of early social communication intervention.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002223.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The data indicate that both SLI and N-SLI represent significant risk factors for all the outcomes identified. There is a strong case for the identification of these children and the development of appropriate interventions. The results are discussed in terms of the measures used and the implications for practice.

The editors have tried to ensure the accuracy of this report but cannot accept responsibility for any errors or omissions. They would like to thank the referees for their constructive comments on the draft document.