Purpose: We sought to understand the extent of the nationwide disruption to Part C Early Intervention services due to COVID-19 and the subsequent shift to telehealth, primarily through a focused examination of providers' perspectives on this disruption in a single state, which is Illinois. Method: To examine the impact of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on Early Intervention service provision and implementation, 385 Early Intervention Illinois providers completed a web-based survey. Archival data were used to determine changes in number of Illinois Early Intervention referrals following the pandemic onset and to compare Illinois' telehealth and stay-at-home policies to those of other states. Results: The majority (85%) of Illinois Early Intervention providers reported a disruption in service provision during COVID-19. The number of sessions delivered and the number of children per caseload decreased significantly. Provider confidence also decreased significantly. Only 28% of providers reported high confidence with telehealth. Identified benefits of telehealth included increased accessibility and caregiver involvement, whereas limitations included perceived lack of caregiver buy-in. New Illinois Early Intervention referrals and cases were lower during COVID-19 than in the previous year. Prior to 2020, 33 states did not have a permanent reimbursement policy for providing telehealth Early Intervention services. For states with a suspension of in-person Early Intervention services due to COVID-19, time to approval for telehealth reimbursement varied (0–22 days). Conclusions: The shift to telehealth in Illinois resulted in decreases in service provision and provider confidence across disciplines. However, providers identified some benefits to telehealth. Telehealth may represent a means to increase Early Intervention accessibility following the pandemic. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.19119539

Access to early intervention as early in development as possible is critical to maximizing long-term outcomes for children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). However, despite the fact that ASD can be reliably diagnosed by 24 months, the average age of diagnosis is 2 years later. Waitlists for specialized developmental evaluations are one barrier to early diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to examine one potential approach to reducing wait time for an ASD diagnostic evaluation by examining the utility of using more than one threshold for an autism screening tool, the Screening Tool for Autism in Toddlers and Young Children (STAT). Participants included 171 children between 24 and 36 months of age who received a medical diagnostic evaluation through Illinois' Early Intervention Program. This study directly compared the performance of the STAT when scored: (a) using the original single threshold, (b) using seven equally weighted items using a single threshold, and (c) using all items differentially weighted based on how strongly that item predicts a later ASD diagnosis. In addition, this study explored the potential utility of using two thresholds rather than a single threshold for each scoring method. Results of this study suggest that using a two-threshold logistic regression method has potential psychometric advantages over a single threshold and categorical scoring. Using this approach may reduce the wait time for specialty ASD diagnostic evaluations by maximizing true negatives and true positives, such that specialty evaluations may be reserved for those cases that are more ambiguous or more complex.Lay Summary: This study examined the benefits of using two versus one cutoff score when screening for autism. Results indicate that having two scores and weighting test items based on predictive association with an autism diagnosis is better than using a single score and weighting each item equally. Using such an approach may reduce the wait time for specialty autism diagnostic evaluations, such that specialty evaluations may be reserved for those cases that are more ambiguous or more complex.

No abstract

Coaching parents to use language facilitation strategies improves long-term language outcomes for autistic children. To optimize parent-mediated interventions, more studies need to explore factors that influence parents’ learning. This study involved 119 autistic children (18–48 months) and their biological mothers enrolled in a single-site, factorial randomized clinical trial. Mothers were taught to use one of two types of language facilitation strategies (responsive or directive) during eight weekly, hour-long instructional sessions. We explored the impact of (a) type of language facilitation strategy, (b) maternal Broad Autism Phenotype (subclinical traits of autism spectrum disorder), and (c) preintervention strategy use on mothers’ outcomes measured immediately and 3 months after intervention sessions. At postintervention, mothers who learned responsive strategies demonstrated significantly greater use of taught strategies than mothers who learned directive strategies ( d = 0.90, 95% CI =[0.47, 1.32]). Mothers’ use of taught strategies did not differ by Broad Autism Phenotype status. However, a significant two-way interaction was found between preintervention strategy use and Broad Autism Phenotype status on taught strategy use ( F(1, 107) = 6.04, p  = 0.016, Δ R2 = 0.053). Findings suggest that strategy type, maternal Broad Autism Phenotype status, and preintervention strategy use may be important factors to be considered to individualize parent-mediated interventions. Lay Abstract Parent-mediated interventions support parents’ use of language facilitation strategies to improve their autistic child’s communication and language development. To improve the effectiveness of parent-mediated interventions, it is important to individualize interventions. This article evaluates how different components of parent-mediated interventions and mothers’ learning styles influence the effectiveness of the intervention. In a randomized clinical trial, mothers were taught to use one of two types of language facilitation strategies: responsive and directive. Mothers’ learning styles were characterized by the Broad Autism Phenotype (BAP) and their natural tendency to use language facilitation strategies before intervention. Findings suggest that it was easier for all mothers (irrespective of learning style) to use responsive strategies compared to directive strategies. In addition, mothers with learning styles that were not consistent with the BAP were more likely to benefit from the intervention if they did not naturally use strategies before the intervention. In contrast, mothers with learning styles that were consistent with the BAP were more likely to benefit from the intervention if they did naturally use strategies before the intervention. Teaching mothers to use responsive strategies results in greater strategy use. Consideration of BAP and mothers’ natural use of language facilitation strategies may inform intervention individualization.

Background: Studies of early caregiver-mediated interventions targeting social communication of young autistic children have yielded variable child outcomes. This study examined the effects of combining two caregiver-mediated interventions on caregiver strategy use and child social communication and language outcomes. Method: This was a multisite parallel randomized controlled trial. Participants included 120 caregivers and their autistic children between 24 and 36 months of age. Dyads were randomly assigned to receive a hybrid intervention that combined Enhanced Milieu Teaching (EMT) and Joint Attention, Symbolic Play, Engagement, and Regulation (JASPER) or to a behavior management control condition, each delivered over 6 months. Caregivers in the JASP-EMT group received twice-weekly, in-home, and hour-long sessions. Outcomes were measured at baseline, the end of intervention (T1), and 6 months later (T2) and included a naturalistic language sample procedure, standardized measures, and caregiver report measures. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02595697). Results: Child outcomes did not differ between conditions at T1 or T2 for child primary (social communication) or secondary (language, play, and autism symptoms) outcomes. Relative to control group caregivers, intervention group caregivers demonstrated significantly higher use of JASP-EMT strategies at T1 and T2, with the exception of two strategies (Responsiveness and Matched Responsiveness), which were used significantly more by control group caregivers. Neither autism severity nor baseline caregiver responsiveness moderated outcomes. Post hoc analyses revealed significant correlations between specific strategies and all child outcomes. Conclusions: Twice-weekly caregiver-mediated intervention that taught caregivers of autistic children to use social communication support strategies did not yield significant child outcomes. Future studies should examine possible sources for the lack of main effects including unexpected differences in linguistic features of caregiver input, changes in control group caregiver behavior, and insufficient intervention dosage. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21714278