PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
November 25, 2019Psychological Bulletin552 citationsOpen Access

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

View Full Paper
MSMicheal SandbankKBKristen Bottema‐BeutelSCShannon Crowley

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

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).

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Sandbank et al. (2019) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69e7862896fd5f1a11e40ba1https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000215
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Difficulties in conducting a randomized controlled trial of health service interventions in intellectual disability: implications for evidence‐based practice2002 · 117 citations
  2. 2New evidence pyramid2016 · 1,396 citations
  3. 3The Effects of Early Intervention on Social Communication Outcomes for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Meta-analysis2019 · 411 citations
  4. 4Efficacy of the ASAP Intervention for Preschoolers with ASD: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial2018 · 53 citations
  5. 5Effects of Improvisational Music Therapy vs Enhanced Standard Care on Symptom Severity Among Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder2017 · 195 citations