In this comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of group design studies of nonpharmacological early interventions designed for young children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), we report summary effects across 7 early intervention types (behavioral, developmental, naturalistic developmental behavioral intervention [NDBI], TEACCH, sensory-based, animal-assisted, and technology-based), and 15 outcome categories indexing core and related ASD symptoms. A total of 1,615 effect sizes were gathered from 130 independent participant samples. A total of 6,240 participants, who ranged in age from 0 -8 years, are represented across the studies. We synthesized effects within intervention and outcome type using a robust variance estimation approach to account for the nesting of effect sizes within studies. We also tracked study quality indicators, and report an additional set of summary effect sizes that restrict included studies to those meeting prespecified quality indicators. Finally, we conducted moderator analyses to evaluate whether summary effects across intervention types were larger for proximal as compared with distal effects, and for context-bound as compared to generalized effects. We found that when study quality indicators were not taken into account, significant positive effects were found for behavioral, developmental, and NDBI intervention types. When effect size estimation was limited to studies with randomized controlled trial (RCT) designs, evidence of positive summary effects existed only for developmental and NDBI intervention types. This was also the case when outcomes measured by parent report were excluded. Finally, when effect estimation was limited to RCT designs and to outcomes for which there was no risk of detection bias, no intervention types showed significant effects on any outcome.

In this commentary, we describe how language used to communicate about autism within much of autism research can reflect and perpetuate ableist ideologies (i.e., beliefs and practices that discriminate against people with disabilities), whether or not researchers intend to have such effects. Drawing largely from autistic scholarship on this subject, along with research and theory from disability studies and discourse analysis, we define ableism and its realization in linguistic practices, provide a historical overview of ableist language used to describe autism, and review calls from autistic researchers and laypeople to adopt alternative ways of speaking and writing. Finally, we provide several specific avenues to aid autism researchers in reflecting on and adjusting their language choices.

Using a structured literature search and meta-regression procedures, this study sought to determine whether associations between joint attention and language are moderated by group (autism spectrum disorder [ASD] vs. typical development [TD]), joint attention type (responding to joint attention [RJA] vs. other), and other study design features and participant characteristics. Studies were located using database searches, hand searches, and electronic requests for data from experts in the field. This resulted in 71 reports or datasets and 605 effect sizes, representing 1,859 participants with ASD and 1,835 TD participants. Meta-regression was used to answer research questions regarding potential moderators of the effect sizes of interest, which were Pearson's r values quantifying the association between joint attention and language variables. In the final models, conducted separately for each language variable, effect sizes were significantly higher for the ASD group as compared to the TD group, and for RJA as compared to non-RJA joint attention types. Approximate mental age trended toward significance for the expressive language model. Joint attention may be more tightly tied to language in children with ASD as compared to TD children because TD children exhibit joint attention at sufficient thresholds so that language development becomes untethered to variations in joint attention. Conversely, children with ASD who exhibit deficits in joint attention develop language contingent upon their joint attention abilities. Because RJA was more strongly related to language than other types of joint attention, future research should involve careful consideration of the operationalization and measurement of joint attention constructs. Autism Res 2016, 9: 1021-1035. © 2016 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

This study examined associations between three parent–child engagement states and social communication, expressive language, and receptive language at 8 month follow-up, in 63 preschool-age children with autism spectrum disorder. We extend the literature on supported joint engagement by dividing this state into higher order (HSJE) and lower order types, with HSJE involving greater reciprocity in toy play. We also examined parents’ follow-in utterances that co-occurred with each state. We found that only HSJE predicts later social communication and expressive language, while object engagement predicts receptive language. HSJE combined with follow-in utterances (HSJE+FI) predicts all three outcomes when controlling for HSJE+FI in other engagement states. When controlling for total HSJE, HSJE+FI is predictive of receptive language.

Individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) have difficulty communicating in ways that are primarily for initiating and maintaining social relatedness (i.e., social communication). We hypothesized that the way researchers measured social communication would affect whether treatment effects were found. Using a best evidence review method, we found that treatments were shown to improve social communication outcomes approximately 54% of the time. The probability that a treatment affected social communication varied greatly depending on whether social communication was directly targeted (63%) or not (39%). Finally, the probability that a treatment affected social communication also varied greatly depending on whether social communication as measured in (a) contexts very similar to treatment sessions (82%) or (b) contexts that differed from treatment on at least setting, materials, and communication partner (33%). This paper also provides several methodological contributions.