Search

The nomenclature used to describe animals working in roles supporting people can be confusing. The same term may be used to describe different roles, or two terms may mean the same thing. This confusion is evident among researchers, practitioners, and end users. Because certain animal roles are provided with legal protections and/or government-funding support in some jurisdictions, it is necessary to clearly define the existing terms to avoid confusion. The aim of this paper is to provide operationalized definitions for nine terms, which would be useful in many world regions: "assistance animal", "companion animal", "educational/school support animal", "emotional support animal", "facility animal", "service animal", "skilled companion animal", "therapy animal", and "visiting/visitation animal". At the International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ) conferences in 2018 and 2020, over 100 delegates participated in workshops to define these terms, many of whom co-authored this paper. Through an iterative process, we have defined the nine terms and explained how they differ from each other. We recommend phasing out two terms (i.e., "skilled companion animal" and "service animal") due to overlap with other terms that could potentially exacerbate confusion. The implications for several regions of the world are discussed.

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed unique challenges for families and caregivers, as well as for autism-focused clinicians, who are faced with providing a thorough and accurate evaluation of children's specific needs and diagnoses in the absence of in-person assessment tools. The shift to telehealth assessments has challenged clinicians to reconsider approaches and assumptions that underlie the diagnostic assessment process, and to adopt new ways of individualizing standard assessments according to family and child needs. Mandates for physical distancing have uncovered deficiencies in diagnostic practices for suspected autism and have illuminated biases that have posed obstacles preventing children and families from receiving the services that they truly need. This Commentary outlines several considerations for improving diagnostic practices as we move forward from the current pandemic and continue to strive to build an adaptable, sustainable, equitable, and family-centered system of care. LAY SUMMARY: Physical distancing and the abrupt end to in-person services for many children on the autism spectrum has forced clinicians to examine the existing challenges with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnostic assessment and consider things they want to keep and things that should be changed in the years ahead. New approaches such as telehealth both alleviated and exacerbated existing disparities, and brought into stark focus the importance of equitable and timely access to family-centered care. This commentary suggests ways of improving clinical practices related to ASD assessment to continue along this path.

Advanced parental age is a well-replicated risk factor for autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a neurodevelopmental condition with a complex and not well-defined etiology. We sought to determine parental age associations with ASD-related outcomes in subjects at high familial risk for ASD. A total of 397 younger siblings of a child with ASD, drawn from existing prospective high familial risk cohorts, were included in these analyses. Overall, we did not observe significant associations of advanced parental age with clinical ASD diagnosis, Social Responsiveness Scale, or Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales scores. Instead, increased odds of ASD were found with paternal age

Research has identified early appearing differences in gross and fine motor abilities in infants at heightened risk (HR) for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) because they are the younger siblings of children with ASD, and it suggests that such differences may be especially apparent among those HR infants themselves eventually diagnosed with ASD. The present study examined overall and item-level performance on the gross (GM) and fine motor (FM) subscales of the Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL) administered at 6 months to a large, geographically diverse sample of HR infants with varying developmental outcomes (ASD, elevated ADOS without ASD, low ADOS without ASD) and to infants with low ASD risk (low risk [LR]). We also explored whether motor abilities assessed at 6 months predicted ASD symptom severity at 36 months. FM (but not GM) performance distinguished all 3 HR groups from LR infants with the weakest performance observed in the HR-Elevated ADOS children, who exhibited multiple differences from both LR and other HR infants in both gross and fine motor skills. Finally, 6-month FM (but not GM) scores significant predicted 36-month ADOS severity scores in the HR group; but no evidence was found of specific early appearing motor signs associated with a later ASD diagnosis. Vulnerabilities in infants' fine and gross motor skills may have significant consequences for later development not only in the motor domain but in other domains. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Sensory symptoms, including auditory processing deficits, are common in autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Processing of temporal aspects of auditory input is understudied; yet, deficits in this domain could contribute to language-related impairments. In children with ASD and well-matched controls, this study examined electrophysiological response to silent gaps in auditory stimuli. Results revealed attenuated amplitude of the P2 event-related potential (ERP) component in ASD. The P2 amplitude reduction was also associated with sensory, language, and diagnostic features. These results suggest that neural response during auditory gap detection is a promising ASD biomarker that could be useful for stratifying subgroups and evaluating treatment response.

We characterized developmental outcomes of a large sample of siblings at familial high-risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), who themselves did not have ASD (n = 859), and low-risk controls with no family history of ASD (n = 473). We report outcomes at age 3 years using the Mullen Scales of Early Learning, the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS), the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R) and adaptive functioning on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. Around 11% of high-risk siblings had mild-to-moderate levels of developmental delay, a rate higher than the low-risk controls. The groups did not differ in the proportion of toddlers with mild-to-moderate language delay. Thirty percent of high-risk siblings had elevated scores on the ADOS, double the rate seen in the low-risk controls. High-risk siblings also had higher parent reported levels of ASD symptoms on the ADI-R and lower adaptive functioning on the Vineland. Males were more likely to show higher levels of ASD symptoms and lower levels of developmental ability and adaptive behavior than females across most measures but not mild-to-moderate language delay. Lower maternal education was associated with lower developmental and adaptive behavior outcomes. These findings are evidence for early emerging characteristics related to the "broader autism phenotype" (BAP) previously described in older family members of individuals with ASD. There is a need for ongoing clinical monitoring of high-risk siblings who do not have an ASD by age 3 years, as well as continued follow-up into school age to determine their developmental and behavioral outcomes. Autism Res 2017, 10: 169-178. © 2016 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Messinger et al. found a 3.18 odds ratio of male to female ASD recurrence in 1241 prospectively followed high-risk (HR) siblings. Among high-risk siblings (with and without ASD), as well as among 583 low-risk controls, girls exhibited higher performance on the Mullen Scales of Early Learning, as well as lower restricted and repetitive behavior severity scores on the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) than boys. That is, female-favoring sex differences in developmental performance and autism traits were evident among low-risk and non-ASD high-risk children, as well as those with ASD. Constantino (Mol Autism) suggests that sex differences in categorical ASD outcomes in Messinger et al. should be understood as a female protective effect. We are receptive to Constantino's (Mol Autism) suggestion, and propose that quantitative sex differences in autism-related features are keys to understanding this female protective effect.

BackgroundThe increased male prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may be mirrored by the early emergence of sex differences in ASD symptoms and cognitive functioning. The female protective effect hypothesis posits that ASD recurrence and symptoms will be higher among relatives of female probands. This study examined sex differences and sex of proband differences in ASD outcome and in the development of ASD symptoms and cognitive functioning among the high-risk younger siblings of ASD probands and low-risk children.MethodsPrior to 18 months of age, 1824 infants (1241 high-risk siblings, 583 low-risk) from 15 sites were recruited. Hierarchical generalized linear model (HGLM) analyses of younger sibling and proband sex differences in ASD recurrence among high-risk siblings were followed by HGLM analyses of sex differences and group differences (high-risk ASD, high-risk non-ASD, and low-risk) on the Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL) subscales (Expressive and Receptive Language, Fine Motor, and Visual Reception) at 18, 24, and 36 months and Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) domain scores (social affect (SA) and restricted and repetitive behaviors (RRB)) at 24 and 36 months.ResultsOf 1241 high-risk siblings, 252 had ASD outcomes. Male recurrence was 26.7 % and female recurrence 10.3 %, with a 3.18 odds ratio. The HR-ASD group had lower MSEL subscale scores and higher RRB and SA scores than the HR non-ASD group, which had lower MSEL subscale scores and higher RRB scores than the LR group. Regardless of group, males obtained lower MSEL subscale scores, and higher ADOS RRB scores, than females. There were, however, no significant interactions between sex and group on either the MSEL or ADOS. Proband sex did not affect ASD outcome, MSEL subscale, or ADOS domain scores.ConclusionsA 3.2:1 male:female odds ratio emerged among a large sample of prospectively followed high-risk siblings. Sex differences in cognitive performance and repetitive behaviors were apparent not only in high-risk children with ASD, but also in high-risk children without ASD and in low-risk children. Sex differences in young children with ASD do not appear to be ASD-specific but instead reflect typically occurring sex differences seen in children without ASD. Results did not support a female protective effect hypothesis.

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 evaluated 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.

This article reviews current evidence for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) interventions for children aged

Early identification of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is essential to ensure that children can access specialized evidence-based interventions that can help to optimize long-term outcomes. Early identification also helps shorten the stressful "diagnostic odyssey" that many families experience before diagnosis. There have been important advances in research into the early development of ASDs, incorporating prospective designs and new technologies aimed at more precisely delineating the early emergence of ASD. Thus, an updated review of the state of the science of early identification of ASD was needed to inform best practice. These issues were the focus of a multidisciplinary panel of clinical practitioners and researchers who completed a literature review and reached consensus on current evidence addressing the question "What are the earliest signs and symptoms of ASD in children aged ≤24 months that can be used for early identification?" Summary statements address current knowledge on early signs of ASD, potential contributions and limitations of prospective research with high-risk infants, and priorities for promoting the incorporation of this knowledge into clinical practice and future research.

BackgroundThe diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) made before age 3 has been found to be remarkably stable in clinic- and community-ascertained samples. The stability of an ASD diagnosis in prospectively ascertained samples of infants at risk for ASD due to familial factors has not yet been studied, however. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends intensive surveillance and screening for this high-risk group, which may afford earlier identification. Therefore, it is critical to understand the stability of an ASD diagnosis made before age 3 in young children at familial risk.MethodsData were pooled across seven sites of the Baby Siblings Research Consortium. Evaluations of 418 later-born siblings of children with ASD were conducted at 18, 24, and 36 months of age and a clinical diagnosis of ASD or Not ASD was made at each age.ResultsThe stability of an ASD diagnosis at 18 months was 93% and at 24 months was 82%. There were relatively few children diagnosed with ASD at 18 or 24 months whose diagnosis was not confirmed at 36 months. There were, however, many children with ASD outcomes at 36 months who had not yet been diagnosed at 18 months (63%) or 24 months (41%).ConclusionsThe stability of an ASD diagnosis in this familial-risk sample was high at both 18 and 24 months of age and comparable with previous data from clinic- and community-ascertained samples. However, almost half of the children with ASD outcomes were not identified as being on the spectrum at 24 months and did not receive an ASD diagnosis until 36 months. Thus, longitudinal follow-up is critical for children with early signs of social-communication difficulties, even if they do not meet diagnostic criteria at initial assessment. A public health implication of these data is that screening for ASD may need to be repeated multiple times in the first years of life. These data also suggest that there is a period of early development in which ASD features unfold and emerge but have not yet reached levels supportive of a diagnosis.

ObjectiveAlthough early brain overgrowth is frequently reported in autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the relationship between ASD and head circumference (HC) is less clear, with inconsistent findings from longitudinal studies that include community controls. Our aim was to examine whether head growth in the first 3 years differed between children with ASD from a high-risk (HR) sample of infant siblings of children with ASD (by definition, multiplex), HR siblings not diagnosed with ASD, and low-risk (LR) controls.MethodParticipants included 442 HR and 253 LR infants from 12 sites of the international Baby Siblings Research Consortium. Longitudinal HC data were obtained prospectively, supplemented by growth records. Random effects nonlinear growth models were used to compare HC in HR infants and LR infants. Additional comparisons were conducted with the HR group stratified by diagnostic status at age 3: ASD (n = 77), developmental delay (DD; n = 32), and typical development (TD; n = 333). Nonlinear growth models were also developed for height to assess general overgrowth associated with ASD.ResultsThere was no overall difference in head circumference growth over the first 3 years between HR and LR infants, although secondary analyses suggested possible increased total growth in HR infants, reflected by the model asymptote. Analyses stratifying the HR group by 3-year outcomes did not detect differences in head growth or height between HR infants who developed ASD and those who did not, nor between infants with ASD and LR controls.ConclusionHead growth was uninformative as an ASD risk marker within this HR cohort.