Therapies for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders

contrast group (n=18) on three measures of social signals, rate of communicating, three measures
of communicative functions, and understanding.
The third-year contrast group performed significantly better than the pre-Early Social
Interaction group on all three measures of communicative means and on actions to others in play,
but there were no significant differences on the three measures of social signals, rate of
communicating, the three measures of communicative functions, understanding, and inventory of
actions. The percentage of children who were verbal was 5.9 percent in the pre- Early Social
Interaction group, 76.5 percent in the post- Early Social Interaction group, and 55.6 percent in
the third-year contrast group.
These findings suggest that the Early Social Interaction project has a positive impact on
ASDs symptoms, but because the groups were unable to be compared at pretest, we cannot
conclude whether the benefits were due to Early Social Interaction or to normal maturation.
Another limitation in the authors’ methodology is the lack of documentation of parental
implementation in the home, given that the parents’ involvement is a significant factor in the
effectiveness of Early Social Interaction treatment.
Table 26. Outcomes of interventions for children at risk for diagnosis of ASDs
Author, year, country
Age, mean (mo) ± SD
Key outcomes
Groups, N enrollment/N final Diagnostic category, N
Study quality
(%)
Dawson et al. 290 2010, US
G1+G2:
1 yr outcomes:
Intake: 38
• Significantly greater improvement in IQ for
G1: ESDM, 24/24
Followup: 52
ESDM (154 vs. 22 pts) than community-based.
G2: Community-based
• No adaptive behavior differences.
interventions, 24/21
Autism: 39 (75)
2 yr outcomes:
Quality: Good
PDD-NOS: 9 (17)
• Significantly more improvement in ESDM
group vs. community-based on IQ; receptive
language, and expressive language.
• Adaptive behavior improvements in both
groups (all domains except socialization);
significantly greater improvements in ESDM
group.
• No change in ADOS severity scores or
repetitive behavior.
• Diagnostic shift toward milder diagnosis (PDD-
NOS) greater for ESDM group.
McConachie et al. 295
G1: 38.12 (6.54)
• Reported language use was substantially
2005, UK
G2: 34.96 (6.68)
higher for G2 with both the core autism (on
average 50 words) and NCA groups
demonstrating improvements.
• No group differences were found for ADOS
scores or behavior issues.
G1: More than Words (MW), 26/26
G1a: MW, participants with autism
dx, 17/17
G1b: MW, participants with PDD-
NOS or other childhood
developmental disorder, 9/9
G2: Wait list control, 21/21
G2a: Wait list control, participants
with autism dx, 12/12
G2b: Wait list control: participants
with PDD-NOS or other childhood
developmental disorder, 13/13
Quality: Fair
G1:
Autism: 17 (65)
NCA: 9 (35)
G2:
Autism: 12 (48)
NCA: 13 (52)
ADOS=Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, dx=diagnosis; ESDM=Early Start Denver Model, G=group; IQ=intelligence
quotient; mo=months; MW=More than Words; NCA=non core autism
97