Search

In this systematic evaluation of intervention research for transition-age autistic youth, we examined quality indicators in 193 group and single-case design intervention studies, which tested effects on 1258 outcomes. Behaviorally based interventions were the most common intervention type. We found significant threats to internal validity for the majority of studies, including inadequate randomization, unmasked assessors, and too few data points to infer functional relations. The majority of outcomes were measured in contexts similar to the intervention and were conceptualized as behaviors directly addressed by intervention procedures. As such, they are of unclear long-term utility for autistic people entering adulthood. Adverse events were rarely reported. We suggest several avenues for improving intervention research for this age group.

Purpose: The language that school professionals use to describe disabled students can reveal and perpetuate ableist assumptions. Professionals' language choices can also challenge ableist attitudes to help create more inclusive, equitable learning environments. This tutorial seeks to guide speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and other school professionals to identify ableist language, understand the ableist ideologies that such language reveals, and develop strategies to implement ways of communicating with and about disabled students that align with an anti-ableist stance. We offer a brief description of ableism in schools, describe models of disability and their varying alignments toward ableist ideologies, and identify ways in which language can reflect and perpetuate ableism. Using Individualized Education Program goals as an example, we examine the ways in which ableist language can manifest in school practices. Finally, we provide suggestions to guide SLPs and other school professionals to examine and change their language to better align with an anti-ableist stance. Conclusions: School professionals' language use is not neutral and may reveal and maintain ableist assumptions about disability and disabled students. While dismantling ableism requires systemic change, we suggest that individual professionals can use language in ways that resist ableism and powerfully impact their students' educational experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this secondary systematic review of single-case and controlled group design intervention studies conducted with transition-age autistic youth, we examined features of 48 studies with 273 participants that measured at least one "problem behavior" outcome (Prospero registration number: 231764). We searched 11 databases for relevant studies, and the final search date was November 2022. Our primary aims were to determine how problem behaviors were defined and selected for reduction, how functions were determined, and the interventions used to address them. Studies were coded and codes were tabulated and converted to percentages to answer each research question. Thirty-eight percent of studies defined problem behavior, and 88% of studies implemented behavioral strategies to reduce problem behaviors. Behaviors with low potential for harm constituted the majority of the 67 outcome variables (61%), while behaviors with high potential for harm were a minority (39%). The most common intervention target was stereotypic behavior. Fewer than half of studies: reported procedures for selecting behaviors, reported procedures to determine behavior function, or ascribed functions to behaviors. We were unable to report on some demographic features of participants (e.g. race/ethnicity) because they were rarely reported in primary studies. We conclude that problem behavior is poorly conceptualized in this research. In a previous study, we looked at research done on strategies to support autistic people who were between 14 and 22 years old. For this study, we looked at all of the studies in our previous study that tried to decrease or stop autistic people from doing certain things—many researchers call these things "problem behavior." There were 48 studies that tried to reduce problem behavior, and most of them used strategies like prompting and reinforcement to try get autistic people to change their behavior. We found many things wrong with these studies. Most of them did not define the group of behaviors they were trying to stop autistic people from doing. None of the studies looked at whether any side effects happened when they tried the strategy they were studying. Also, most of the studies tried to stop autistic people from doing behaviors that probably were not harmful, like stereotypic behavior. Most of the studies did not say how they decided that the behaviors they tried to stop were a problem for the autistic people in the study, and most studies did not try to figure out why the autistic people in the study did the behaviors the researchers were trying to stop them from doing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this secondary analysis of a previously conducted systematic review, we analyze social validity assessments in intervention research for transition-age autistic youth. Social validity is concerned with the acceptability of the intervention goals, the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention procedures, and the perceived importance of the intervention outcomes. We found that although just over half of intervention studies assessed some aspect of social validity, only 43% of those studies examined all three dimensions. There were several shortcomings of the social validation procedures, including a lack of psychometric validation for quantitatively scored questionnaires and a failure to describe qualitative procedures for analyzing open-ended questions. These shortcomings likely explain why interpretations of social validity assessments were nearly universally positive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]