4.6 Article

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

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN
卷 146, 期 1, 页码 1-29

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/bul0000215

关键词

autism spectrum disorder; intervention; meta-analysis; robust variance estimation; study quality

资金

  1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the National Institutes of Health [U54HD083211]
  2. Training Program in Fundamental Neuroscience of the National Institutes of Health [T32 MH064913]
  3. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders [1R21DC016144]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of group design studies of nonphannacological 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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据