Cited by 210Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchBehavioral and Psychological StudiesChild Nutrition and Feeding Issues

A systematic review and meta-analysis of parent training for disruptive behavior in children with autism spectrum disorder

Postorino, Valentina, Sharp, William G., McCracken, Courtney E., Bearss, Karen, Burrell, T. Lindsey, Evans, A. Nichole, Scahill, Lawrence·2017·Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review

Abstract

Parent training (PT) has emerged as a promising treatment for disruptive behavior in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This review summarizes the essential elements of PT for disruptive behavior in children with ASD and evaluates the available evidence for PT using both descriptive and meta-analytic procedures. We searched Medline, PsycINFO, and PubMed databases (1980-2016) in peer-reviewed journals for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PT for disruptive behavior in children with ASD. The systematic search of 2023 publications yielded eight RCTs involving a total of 653 participants. We calculated effect sizes using either raw post-treatment means and standard deviations for each treatment group (PT and control) or group mean differences with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Differences in post-treatment means were converted to a standardized difference in means (SMD) for each primary outcome. Results support the efficacy of PT for disruptive behavior in children with ASD, with a SMD of -0.59 [95% CI (-0.88, -0.30); p < 0.001]. Across these eight studies, there was significant heterogeneity in the effect of PT on disruptive behavior. This variability is likely due to differences in sample size, number of treatment sessions, study duration, and control condition employed. Current findings provide solid support for the efficacy of PT for disruptive behavior in children with ASD. Future studies should focus on effectiveness trials to promote wider implementation of PT in clinical settings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10567-017-0237-2

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Postorino, V., Sharp, W. G., McCracken, C. E., Bearss, K., Burrell, T. L., Evans, A. N., & Scahill, L.
Affiliations
  • Emory University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Scahill, Lawrence
Venue
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
Published
2017-06-09
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
391-402
ISSN
  • 1096-4037 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2827
OpenAlex
W2624532739
Cited by
210
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
Keywords
parent training, disruptive behavior, autism spectrum disorder, children, treatment efficacy, effect size, treatment effect heterogeneity, parent-mediated intervention
MeSH terms
Problem Behavior, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Adult, Child, Child Behavior, Education, Nonprofessional, Humans, Parents

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review