A Systematic Review of Pragmatic Language Interventions for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder
PLoS One
Parsons, L., Cordier, R., et al. (2017).
PLoS One, 12(4), e0172242.
This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the effects of pragmatic language interventions (e.g., peer/parent mediated interventions, computer-based interventions) on pragmatic language outcomes (e.g., introduction, responsiveness, non-verbal communication, social-emotional attunement, executive function) in children, 18 years and younger, on the autism spectrum.
No funding received
Up to May 14, 2016
Experimental studies
21 studies are included in the qualitative analysis and 15 are included in the meta-analysis.
<div>Findings demonstrated a small but significant effect favoring pragmatic language interventions for children on the autism spectrum (z[17] = 2.889, p = 0.004, Hedge’s g = 0.274, 95% CI = 0.088–0.460). No significant difference in outcomes was noted as a result of participant age or method of assessment (e.g., parent report, observation, clinician measured lab task). Specific service delivery effects for interventions targeting pragmatic language skills were as follows: </div>
<ul>
<li><span style="color: #333333;">Interventions set in clinics had a significant, moderate effect (z[12]= 5.78, p<0.001, Hedge's g= 0.535, 95% CI= 0.353-0.718), while those delivered at home and in schools had no significant effect. </span></li>
<li><span style="color: #333333;"> Integrated programs incorporating caregiver education/training demonstrated a significant, moderate effect (z[4]= 5.265, p<0.001, Hedge's g= 0.760, 95% CI= 0.477-1.943), while parent education only had no significant impact. </span></li>
<li><span style="color: #333333;">Programs delivered directly to the child demonstrated a significant, moderate effect (z[12]= 5.842, p<0.001, Hedge’s g= 0.482, 95% CI= 0.320–0.644).</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #333333;">Group interventions produced the largest effects when compared to individual and hybrid interventions (z[5]= 3.811, p< 0.001, Hedge's g= 0.553, 95% CI= 0.269-0.838).</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #333333;">Customized pragmatic language interventions did not have a significantly difference effect as compared to alternative treatments or treatment as usual. </span></li>
</ul>
<div><span style="color: #333333;">These results should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of studies included within each comparison, small sample sizes, and differences in study designs. Further research is indicated. </span></div>
