Project AIM: Autism Intervention Meta-Analysis for Studies of Young Children

Simple item page
dc.creatorSandbank, Michael
dc.creatorBottema-Beutel, Kristen
dc.creatorCrowley, Shannon
dc.creatorCassidy, Margaret
dc.creatorDunham, Kacie
dc.creatorFeldman, Jacob I.
dc.creatorCrank, Jenna
dc.creatorAlbarran, Susanne A.
dc.creatorRaj, Sweeya
dc.creatorMahbub, Prachy
dc.creatorWoynaroski, Tiffany G.
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-03T15:27:21Z
dc.date.available2019-12-03T15:27:21Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.descriptionArticle is forthcoming as of December 2019. Citation for published version will be added once released by the American Psychological Association.en_US
dc.description.abstractIn 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 seven 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 pre-specified quality indicators. Finally, we conducted moderator analyses to evaluate whether summary effects across intervention types were larger for proximal as compared to 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.en_US
dc.description.departmentSpecial Educationen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the National Institutes of Health (U54HD083211; PI: Neul)en_US
dc.identifier.citationhttps://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000215en_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000215
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2152/78627
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.26153/tsw/5683
dc.publisherAmerican Psychological Associationen_US
dc.relation.ispartofUT Faculty/Researcher Worksen_US
dc.rights.restrictionOpenen_US
dc.subjectSpecial Educationen_US
dc.subjectSystematic Reviewen_US
dc.subjectAutismen_US
dc.subjectInterventionen_US
dc.subjectMeta-analysisen_US
dc.titleProject AIM: Autism Intervention Meta-Analysis for Studies of Young Childrenen_US
dc.typePost-printen_US

Access full-text files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Sandback 2019 Post-print for Psych Bulletin.pdf
Size:
1.25 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Post-print of systematic review to be published in Psychological Bulletin
Download

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.64 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download

Collections

UT Faculty/Researcher Works