This systematic review describes a set of practices that have evidence of positive effects with autistic children and youth. This is the third iteration of a review of the intervention literature (Odom et al. in J Autism Dev Disorders 40(4):425–436, 2010a; Prevent School Fail 54(4):275–282, 2010b; Wong et al. in https://autismpdc.fpg.unc.edu/sites/autismpdc.fpg.unc.edu/files/imce/documents/2014-EBP-Report.pdf; J Autism Dev Disorders 45(7):1951–1966, 2015), extending coverage to articles published between 1990 and 2017. A search initially yielded 31,779 articles, and the subsequent screening and evaluation process found 567 studies to include. Combined with the previous review, 972 articles were synthesized, from which the authors found 28 focused intervention practices that met the criteria for evidence-based practice (EBP). Former EBPs were recategorized and some manualized interventions were distinguished as meeting EBP criteria. The authors discuss implications for current practices and future research.

Even with inclusive general education classrooms, high school students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often have few social interactions with classmates. Peer support arrangements hold promise for increasing peer interactions and shared learning within general education classrooms. However, previous evaluations of this intervention have focused narrowly on adolescents with severe intellectual disability. In this pilot study, we examined the impact and social validity of peer support arrangements for four high school students with ASD. All four students increased their social interactions with peers, while academic engagement either increased or maintained for three students. Social validity data from peer partners and students indicated they considered the intervention acceptable. We discuss limitations and offer recommendations for future research and practice aimed at enhancing social connections within inclusive classrooms.

There are marked racial and ethnic disparities in diagnosis and services for individuals on the autism spectrum, yet race and ethnicity are underreported and underexamined in autism research. The current study examines the reporting of race and ethnicity and the inclusion of participants across racial and ethnic groups in studies included in a large-scale systematic review of autism intervention research (1990–2017). Trained research assistants reviewed 1013 articles and extracted data on the reporting of race and ethnicity data and the inclusion of participants from different racial and ethnic categories from each article. Only 25% of the articles reported any data on race and ethnicity and reporting over time has slowly increased across the 28 years of the review. Descriptive statistics suggest that race and ethnicity reporting varied by study design, intervention, and outcomes. In studies with reported data, White participants had the highest rate of participation (64.8%), with a large gap between the next highest rates of participation, which were among Hispanic/Latino (9.4%), Black (7.7%), and Asian (6.4%) participants. The lack of reporting and the limited inclusion of participants across minoritized racial and ethnic groups are concerning and suggest a need to examine practices in autism research from planning to dissemination. Lay Abstract Researchers who study autism-related interventions do a poor job reporting data related to the race and ethnicity of autistic individuals who participate in their studies, and of those who do report these data, the participants are overwhelmingly White. This is problematic for many reasons, as we know little about how interventions are meeting the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse populations, and we assume that interventions are effective for all when they have been developed and validated primarily with and for White children. This study examined the reporting patterns of autism intervention researchers whose work was included in a large-scale systematic review of the intervention literature published between 1990 and 2017. We found that only 25% of studies (out of 1,013 included in the review) included data related to the race and ethnicity of their participants, with minimal change in reporting patterns across the years. In studies with reported data, White participants had the highest rate of participation, with a large gap between the next highest rates of participation among Hispanic/Latino, Black, and Asian participants. Other race and ethnicity groups had very low representation. This study includes additional analyses which examine how the reporting patterns and the inclusion of racially and ethnically diverse participants varies across study types, interventions, and outcome areas. Reporting this data is merely a starting point to begin to address the many disparities in autism-related healthcare, education, and research practices, and this article includes broader implications and next steps to ensure the field becomes more equitable and inclusive.

Despite an emphasis on identifying evidence-based practices among researchers and using evidence-based practices among professionals in the field of education, there are still problems with uptake and implementation in real-world settings. This lack of diffusion of practices is evident in educational programming for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). One solution is to use an iterative process to develop interventions in which researchers work in collaboration with the end users to test and refine interventions. However, there are very few guidelines for developing feasible and effective interventions through these iterative processes. This article provides a description of the iterative process used to develop the Advancing Social-Communication and Play (ASAP) intervention, a supplemental program designed for public preschool classrooms serving students with ASD, and examples of how data from the sequence of iterative design studies shaped the intervention development. The research team offers guidelines for other researchers looking to engage in intervention development using an iterative process in the context of partnerships with end users, including suggestions for planning and executing an intervention development grant.

Researchers have highlighted engagement as a critical component of effective interventions for students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), yet there is limited research related to engagement in school-age children with ASD. This descriptive study was designed to examine joint engagement and its relationship with classroom factors and student characteristics. The sample included 25 elementary and middle school students with ASD. Mixed level modeling was used to examine relationships between joint engagement and classroom factors and student characteristics. Joint engagement was significantly related to group size, use of student-directed practices, autism severity, and expressive communication skills. These findings have important implications for educational policies and practices and future research related to engagement and effective interventions for students with ASD.

Assessing implementation of comprehensive treatment programs is a multifaceted process that should extend beyond measuring solely treatment fidelity. The purpose of this article is to describe and demonstrate a thorough process for assessing implementation and receipt of a comprehensive treatment program for students with autism spectrum disorders in high schools. The Center on Secondary Education for Students With Autism Spectrum Disorders (CSESA) developed a profile and index approach to assess implementation of seven features related to the CSESA intervention process and content. In a cluster-randomized trial, the CSESA implementation profile captured information about diverse features of implementation, and this index successfully differentiated between intervention and control schools. A multifeatured implementation profile and index is an important step forward for examining and implementing comprehensive treatment programs in educational settings.

No abstract

Commemorating the 40 th anniversary of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) III, the purpose of this commentary is to describe school-based and school-relevant interventions and instructional approaches for children and youth with autism that have been developed and employed during that time period. The commentary begins with a brief description of foundational research that provides an historical context. Research themes shaped by science, ethics, social policy, and the changes in the DSM provide an organization for describing the evolution of intervention and instructional practices over the four previous decades. The commentary concludes with a discussion of school-contextual variables that influence implementation and the promise of the “iSciences” for closing the research to practice gap in the future.