This article reviews current evidence for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) interventions for children aged ,3 years, based on peerreviewed articles published up to December 2013. Several groups have adapted treatments initially designed for older, preschool-aged children with ASD, integrating best practice in behavioral teaching methods into a developmental framework based on current scientific understanding of how infants and toddlers learn. The central role of parents has been emphasized, and interventions are designed to incorporate learning opportunities into everyday activities, capitalize on "teachable moments," and facilitate the generalization of skills beyond the familiar home setting. Our review identified several comprehensive and targeted treatment models with evidence of clear benefits. Although some trials were limited to 8-to 12-week outcome data, enhanced outcomes associated with some interventions were evaluated over periods as long as 2 years. Based on this review, recommendations are proposed for clinical practice and future research. Pediatrics 2015;136:S60-S81

This article reviews current evidence for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) screening based on peer-reviewed articles published to December 2013. Screening provides a standardized process to ensure that children are systematically monitored for early signs of ASD to promote earlier diagnosis. The current review indicates that screening in children aged 18 to 24 months can assist in early detection, consistent with current American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendations. We identify ASD-specific and broadband screening tools that have been ev-aluated in large community samples which show particular promise in terms of accurate classification and clinical utility. We also suggest strategies to help overcome challenges to implementing ASD screening in community practice, as well as priorities for future research. Pediatrics 2015;136:S41-S59

Reliability of the process section was strong for total fidelity score (ICC = .99, Cronbach's alpha = .99) and acceptable for most items. Total score significantly differentiated ASI from four alternative interventions. Expert ratings indicated strong agreement that items in the structural and process sections represent ASI intervention. CONCLUSION. The Ayres Sensory Integration Fidelity Measure has strong content validity. The process section is reliable and valid when scored by trained raters with expertise in ASI.

Validity of sensory integration outcomes studies is threatened by weak fidelity in regard to therapeutic process. Inferences regarding sensory integration effectiveness cannot be drawn with confidence until fidelity is adequately addressed in outcomes research.