Educating Children with Autism

The Lancet Commission on the future of care and clinical research in autism

This systematic review describes a set of practices that have evidence of positive effects with autistic children and youth. This is the third iteration of a review of the intervention literature (Odom et al. in J Autism Dev Disorders 40(4):425-436, 2010a; Prevent School Fail 54(4):275-282, 2010b; Wong et al. in https://autismpdc.fpg.unc.edu/sites/autismpdc.fpg.unc.edu/files/imce/documents/2014-EBP-Report.pdf ; J Autism Dev Disorders 45(7):1951-1966, 2015), extending coverage to articles published between 1990 and 2017. A search initially yielded 31,779 articles, and the subsequent screening and evaluation process found 567 studies to include. Combined with the previous review, 972 articles were synthesized, from which the authors found 28 focused intervention practices that met the criteria for evidence-based practice (EBP). Former EBPs were recategorized and some manualized interventions were distinguished as meeting EBP criteria. The authors discuss implications for current practices and future research.

/pdf/evidence-based-practices-for-children-youth-and-young-adults-14xhalckuk.pdf

Evidence-Based Practices for Children, Youth, and Young Adults with Autism: Third Generation Review

The growth of autistic self-advocacy and the neurodiversity movement has brought about new ethical, theoretical and ideological debates within autism theory, research and practice. These debates have had genuine impact within some areas of autism research but their influence is less evident within early intervention research. In this paper, we argue that all autism intervention stakeholders need to understand and actively engage with the views of autistic people and with neurodiversity as a concept and movement. In so doing, intervention researchers and practitioners are required to move away from a normative agenda and pay diligence to environmental goodness-of-fit, autistic developmental trajectories, internal drivers and experiences, and autistic prioritized intervention targets. Autism intervention researchers must respond to these debates by reframing effectiveness, developing tools to measure autistic prioritized outcomes, and forming partnerships with autistic people. There is a pressing need for increased reflection and articulation around how intervention practices align with a neurodiversity framework and greater emphasis within intervention programmes on natural developmental processes, coping strategies, autonomy, and well-being.

/pdf/autistic-self-advocacy-and-the-neurodiversity-movement-5g5tspvz3s.pdf

Autistic Self-Advocacy and the Neurodiversity Movement: Implications for Autism Early Intervention Research and Practice

Across Europe, there is increased awareness of the frequency and importance of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which is now recognised not only as a childhood disorder but as a heterogeneous, neurodevelopmental condition that persists throughout life. Services for individuals with autism and their families vary widely, but in most European countries, provision is limited. In 2018, European Society of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (ESCAP) identified the need for a Practice Guidance document that would help to improve knowledge and practice, especially for individuals in underserviced areas. The present document, prepared by the ASD Working Party and endorsed by the ESCAP Board on October 3, 2019, summarises current information on autism and focuses on ways of detecting, diagnosing, and treating this condition.

/pdf/escap-practice-guidance-for-autism-a-summary-of-evidence-g24kndgpvi.pdf

ESCAP practice guidance for autism: a summary of evidence-based recommendations for diagnosis and treatment.

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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Prachy Mahbub

Papers

Project AIM: Autism intervention meta-analysis for studies of young children