CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 353Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchBehavioral and Psychological StudiesChild and Animal Learning Development

Intervention targeting development of socially synchronous engagement in toddlers with autism spectrum disorder: a randomized controlled trial

Open access
Landa, Rebecca J., Holman, Katherine C., O’Neill, Allison H., Stuart, Elizabeth A.·2011·Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
DOI 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02288.xPMC PMC3059234
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Social and communication impairments are core deficits and prognostic indicators of autism. We evaluated the impact of supplementing a comprehensive intervention with a curriculum targeting socially synchronous behavior on social outcomes of toddlers with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Methods: Fifty toddlers with ASD, ages 21 to 33 months, were randomized to one of two six‐month interventions: Interpersonal Synchrony or Non‐Interpersonal Synchrony. The interventions provided identical intensity (10 hours per week in classroom), student‐to‐teacher ratio, schedule, home‐based parent training (1.5 hours per month), parent education (38 hours), and instructional strategies, except the Interpersonal Synchrony condition provided a supplementary curriculum targeting socially engaged imitation, joint attention, and affect sharing; measures of these were primary outcomes. Assessments were conducted pre‐intervention, immediately post‐intervention, and, to assess maintenance, at six‐month follow‐up. Random effects models were used to examine differences between groups over time. Secondary analyses examined gains in expressive language and nonverbal cognition, and time effects during the intervention and follow‐up periods. Results: A significant treatment effect was found for socially engaged imitation ( p = .02), with more than doubling (17% to 42%) of imitated acts paired with eye contact in the Interpersonal Synchrony group after the intervention. This skill was generalized to unfamiliar contexts and maintained through follow‐up. Similar gains were observed for initiation of joint attention and shared positive affect, but between‐group differences did not reach statistical significance. A significant time effect was found for all outcomes ( p < .001); greatest change occurred during the intervention period, particularly in the Interpersonal Synchrony group. Conclusions: This is the first ASD randomized trial involving toddlers to identify an active ingredient for enhancing socially engaged imitation. Adding social engagement targets to intervention improves short‐term outcome at no additional cost to the intervention. The social, language, and cognitive gains in our participants provide evidence for plasticity of these developmental systems in toddlers with ASD. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00106210?term = landa&rank = 3.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02288.x

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 36 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    At post-test, there was a trend toward more frequent initiation of joint attention in the Interpersonal Synchrony group (p=.08, d=0.89).

    “Between-group comparisons of IJA and SPA at post-test and follow-up revealed a trend toward significance for more frequent IJA at post-test (p=.08, d=0.89) and follow-up (p=.07, d=1.56) in the IS group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The Non-IS group showed significant growth over time only on the expressive language T score.

    “while the Non-IS group showed significant growth only on the EL T score (p=0.01).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    IJA showed a trend toward significance at both post-test and follow-up.

    “with a trend toward significance for IJA at post-test and follow-up.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The rate of growth in socially engaged imitation differed between groups during the intervention period (p=0.04).

    “Analysis of between-group differences in slopes (rates of growth) within each assessment period revealed differences in SEI growth during the intervention period (p=0.04; Table 3) but not during follow-up (p=0.24).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    For all outcomes except SPA, the IS group had significantly more rapid growth in the intervention period than in the follow-up period.

    “For all outcomes except for SPA (p=0.07), the IS group had significantly more rapid growth in the intervention period than in the follow-up period (p’s ≤0.001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 35
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 16

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The added curriculum stimulated socially engaged imitation, which more than doubled from pre-test to post-test.

    “The supplementary curriculum activated development of socially engaged imitation (a greater than two-fold increase from pre- to post-test)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was a significant treatment effect on socially engaged imitation (p=0.02), with the proportion of imitated acts paired with eye contact in the Interpersonal Synchrony group increasing from 17% to 42% after intervention.

    “A significant treatment effect was found for socially engaged imitation (p=0.02), with more than doubling (17% to 42%) of imitated acts paired with eye contact in the Interpersonal Synchrony group after the intervention.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A marginal treatment effect was found for visual reception T score, with a trend toward higher nonverbal cognition at post-test for the IS group.

    “A marginal treatment effect was found for VR T score, with a trend toward higher levels of nonverbal cognition at post-test for the IS group (p=0.07; Table 2)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Nonverbal cognition improved more in the IS group during intervention, with a trend toward significance.

    “A trend toward significance was found for greater improvement in the secondary variable of nonverbal cognition within the IS group during the intervention period.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The greatest change occurred during the intervention period, particularly in the Interpersonal Synchrony group.

    “A significant time effect was found for all outcomes (p<0.001); greatest change occurred during the intervention period, particularly in the Interpersonal Synchrony group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The improvement in socially engaged imitation generalized to unfamiliar contexts and was maintained through follow-up.

    “This skill was generalized to unfamiliar contexts and maintained through follow-up.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Effect sizes for the IS group's growth during the follow-up period ranged from −0.34 for visual reception T score to 0.34 for IJA, with none statistically significant.

    “In contrast, effect sizes for the IS group’s growth during the follow-up period, while not receiving our intervention, ranged from −0.34 for VR T score to 0.34 for IJA, with none being statistically significant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    During follow-up, growth slowed in the IS group and declined in the Non-IS group.

    “Our finding that slopes became less steep in the IS group or decreased in the Non-IS group during follow-up”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Gains similar to those in socially engaged imitation were observed for initiation of joint attention and shared positive affect, but the between-group differences were not statistically significant.

    “Similar gains were observed for initiation of joint attention and shared positive affect, but between-group differences did not reach statistical significance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The effect sizes for the IS group's growth during the intervention period were all over 1 and all reached significance.

    “The effect sizes for the IS group’s growth during the intervention period were all over 1 and all reached significance (p<0.001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Both groups showed gains in social, cognitive, and language domains, especially during the 6-month intervention and in the IS group.

    “Secondary analyses also revealed social, cognitive, and language gains in both groups, particularly during the 6-month intervention period and within the IS group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The Non-IS group showed significant growth during the intervention period only for expressive language T score, with no significant growth during follow-up.

    “The Non-IS group showed significant growth during the intervention period only for EL T score (p=0.02), with no significant growth detected on any variable during follow-up.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Both intervention groups made significant gains in expressive language, cognitive, and social functioning.

    “Significant improvements in expressive language, cognitive, and social functioning occurred in both intervention groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Social and communication impairments are central deficits and predictors of outcome in autism spectrum disorders.

    “Social and communication impairments are core deficits and prognostic indicators of autism.”
    • Also stated in: § Conclusions · plain
      “Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) are defined by the presence of social and communication impairments that appear early in life and persist into adulthood (Howlin, Goode, Hutton, & Rutter, 2004; Landa, Holman, & Garrett-Mayer, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Howlin, Goode, Hutton, & Rutter, 2004

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Landa, Holman, & Garrett-Mayer, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Dawson and colleagues reported a negative change in Vineland Socialization standard scores and no improvement in ADOS severity scores after two years of intervention in 23-month-olds receiving either the Early Denver Model or local services.

    “Dawson and colleagues (2009) reported a negative change in Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales Socialization domain standard score (Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti, 1984) and lack of improvement in severity scores from the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS; Lord, Rutter, DiLavore, & Risi, 1999) after two years of intervention in 23-month-olds receiving either the Early Denver Model (20 hours”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Dawson et al., 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti, 1984

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Lord, Rutter, DiLavore, & Risi, 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A parent-mediated intervention study by Chandler and colleagues reported improved social interest in all 18 participants, but did not provide details on the magnitude or measurement of change.

    “In their description of a parent-mediated intervention for young children with ASD, Chandler, Christie, Newson, and Prevezer (2002) reported improved social interest in all 18 participants, but details were not provided about the magnitude of change nor how it was measured.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chandler, Christie, Newson, and Prevezer (2002)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Few intervention studies involving two-year-olds with ASD have been published, and most used descriptive or quasi-experimental designs with small samples.

    “only a few intervention studies, mostly with small sample sizes, have been published involving this age group, and most have relied on descriptive or quasi-experimental approaches.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The social and communication impairments that differentiate ASD from typical development and developmental delay include abnormalities in affect expression, communication initiation, reciprocity, social/affective signaling, joint attention, symbolic behavior, motor imitation, language comprehension, and conventional gesture use.

    “Social and communication impairments that distinguish ASD from typical development and developmental delay include abnormality in affect expression, initiation of communication, reciprocity in interaction, social/affective signaling, joint attention, symbolic behavior, motor imitation, language understanding, and conventional use of gestures (Charman et al., 1997; Landa, Holman, & Garrett-Mayer, 2”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Charman et al., 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Landa, Holman, & Garrett-Mayer, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rogers, Hepburn, Stackhouse, & Wehner, 2003

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In a descriptive study of 20 two-year-olds, Stahmer and colleagues found improvements in some children's tolerance of peer proximity, responses to others' initiations, and reciprocal interaction after an average of 9.7 months of intervention.

    “In their descriptive study of 20 2-year-olds enrolled in a classroom-based, multi-instructional method intervention, Stahmer, Ingersoll, and Koegel (2004) identified improvements in some children’s tolerance of proximity to peers, response to others’ initiations, and engagement in reciprocal interaction after a mean of 9.7 months of intervention.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stahmer, Ingersoll, and Koegel (2004)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Schertz and Odom reported improvement in two of three children's responses to others' joint attention bids and in their initiation of joint attention.

    “In another parent-mediated intervention, Schertz and Odom (2007) reported improvement in two of three children’s response to others’ joint attention bids and initiation of joint attention.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Schertz and Odom (2007)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    There were no between-group differences on any dependent variable at pre-test, indicating well-matched groups.

    “T-tests and chi-square tests revealed no between-group differences on any of the dependent variables at pre-test (p’s=0.239 to 0.924), indicating well-matched groups (see Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationown data

    The non-significant overall test for initiation of joint attention may be related to the significantly greater variance within the Interpersonal Synchrony group at follow-up (p<0.001).

    “Lack of significance on the joint test for IJA could be related to the significantly larger variance within the IS group for IJA at follow-up (p<0.001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The statistical model adjusted for pre-test outcome values, ADOS combined Communication and Social Interaction scores, and MSEL Receptive Language T scores.

    “To account for chance differences between groups at pre-test and increase precision, the model also controlled for pre-test values of each outcome variable, ADOS algorithm combined Communication and Social Interaction scores (a measure of autism severity), and MSEL Receptive Language T scores.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Being able to combine imitation with socially directed gaze lets toddlers with ASD resemble peers and signal engagement.

    “Such ability enables toddlers with ASD to liken themselves to peers while also signaling their interactive engagement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Inter-observer reliability for fidelity coding was assessed on 27% of coded videotapes, with ICCs from 0.79 to 0.97.

    “Inter-observer reliability was assessed for 27% (n=17) of coded video tapes; intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) ranged from 0.79 to 0.97.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Diagnostic inter-rater reliability was assessed in 9 cases (18%), with 100% agreement.

    “Inter-rater reliability of diagnosis was examined for 9 (18%) cases; agreement was 100%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The assessment of SEI, IJA, and SPA was demanding and tested generalization to a new context, examiner, and activity.

    “The test of SEI, IJA, and SPA outcome was stringent, reflecting generalization of these behaviors to a novel interaction context (location and materials), with an unfamiliar examiner, under unfamiliar circumstances (activity).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Outcome assessments at baseline, post-intervention, and six-month follow-up were conducted by a clinician who was blind to group assignment and unfamiliar with the child.

    “Children were assessed at baseline (pre-test), termination of the intervention (post-test), and at a six-month follow-up within the Autism Center’s Child Development Laboratory by a clinician blind to group membership and unfamiliar to the child.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The final analyzed sample comprised 48 children, with 24 in the Interpersonal Synchrony group and 24 in the Non-Interpersonal Synchrony group.

    “Analyses were conducted on a final sample of 48 children (IS n=24; Non-IS n=24).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The two groups had similar treatments; the only difference was whether the supplementary social curriculum for SEI, IJA, and SPA was added.

    “We compared change in self-initiated socially engaged behavior in two groups receiving comparable treatments, differing only in the presence or absence of a supplementary social curriculum targeting SEI, IJA, and SPA, which are core deficits of autism.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Socially engaged imitation was coded blind to group and time from videotapes of a structured imitation task, with an ICC of 0.956 based on 15 videotapes.

    “SEI was coded blind to group membership or time point from videotapes of a structured imitation task, modified from that described by Rogers and colleagues (2003). Examiners modeled 15 novel facial, manual, and object manipulation movements, providing two response opportunities per movement, as children were instructed to “Do this”. ICC calculated on 15 (12%) videotapes was 0.956.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rogers and colleagues (2003)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    One child was withdrawn by parents to enroll in a program for typically developing children, and one child was missing a primary baseline variable.

    “One child was withdrawn by his parents to enroll in a program for children with typical development and one child was missing a primary baseline variable (Figure 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    A single interventionist worked in both classrooms and was told not to discuss differences with the other interventionists.

    “One interventionist was employed in both classrooms and was instructed not to discuss differences with the other interventionists.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Certain teaching strategies common to both interventions are essential for typically developing children to develop flexible, generative language.

    “Some of these strategies are vital ingredients for development of flexible and generative language in typically developing children (Barsalou, Breazeal, & Smith, 2007; Booth & Waxman, 2002).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Barsalou, Breazeal, & Smith, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Booth & Waxman, 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Mundy and colleagues proposed that joint processing of one's own and others' actions and objects of attention leads to an automaticity that is likely fundamental to symbolic and social cognitive learning.

    “According to Mundy, Sullivan, and Mastergeorge (2009), joint processing of one’s own and others’ actions and objects of attention gives way to an automaticity that is likely fundamental to symbolic and social cognitive learning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mundy, Sullivan, and Mastergeorge (2009)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationown data

    The results shed light on how social and communication development can change in toddlers with ASD.

    “Our findings provide insights into the plasticity of social and communication development in toddlers with ASD.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Adding social engagement targets to intervention improves short-term outcomes without additional intervention cost.

    “Adding social engagement targets to intervention improves short-term outcome at no additional cost to the intervention.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The groups did not differ in socioeconomic status, proportion of non-Caucasian participants, or amount of outside speech-language treatment during the intervention or follow-up.

    “Table 1 shows that there were no group differences in socioeconomic status (Hollingshead, 1975) scores (p=0.741), proportion of non-Caucasian participants (p=0.94), or amount of outside speech-language treatment during the intervention (p=0.268) or during the follow-up period (p=0.696).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The Interpersonal Synchrony and Non-Interpersonal Synchrony groups received similar amounts of classroom intervention (means 205.66 and 196.21 hours), with no significant difference.

    “The IS and Non-IS groups received a mean (standard deviation) of 205.66 (18.63) and 196.21 (28.4) hours of classroom-based intervention, which was not significantly different (p=0.17).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The reported effects are intent-to-treat estimates of assignment to the Interpersonal Synchrony intervention, regardless of intervention actually received.

    “The effects estimated are intent-to-treat effects, which estimate the effect of assignment to the IS intervention, regardless of the amount of intervention actually received.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Before randomization, children were matched into pairs on MSEL Receptive Language and Visual Reception T scores and ADOS Social Interaction algorithm scores, and one child from each pair was randomly assigned to the Interpersonal Synchrony group.

    “Prior to randomization, children were placed into matched pairs based on MSEL Receptive Language and VR T scores and ADOS Social Interaction algorithm scores. Within each pair, one child was randomly selected for the IS group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    This study adds to the limited literature on core communication and social deficits in young children with autism.

    “The present study contributes to a small body of literature focused on core deficits of communication and social functioning in young children with autism.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Many intervention studies of preschoolers with ASD have found improvements in nonverbal cognition and language.

    “Numerous intervention studies involving preschoolers with ASD have also reported gains in nonverbal cognition and language (reviewed by Rogers & Vismara, 2008)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rogers & Vismara, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

43 of 43

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    This trial is the first randomized controlled trial in two-year-olds with ASD to test an intervention component aimed at core social deficits.

    “To our knowledge, this is the first RCT involving two-year-olds designed to assess effects of an intervention ingredient on social development.”
    “This is the first RCT involving two-year-olds with ASD to assess the efficacy of an intervention ingredient targeting core social deficits of autism.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most autism intervention research has studied children aged 3 and older.

    “Autism intervention studies have focused largely on children age 3 and older.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No randomized trial had previously demonstrated improvement in core social deficits among toddlers with ASD.

    “No randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown evidence for improvement in core social deficits of autism in toddlers with ASD.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The AEPS curriculum also covers imitation and joint attention goals, though less thoroughly than the IS curriculum.

    “In addition, the AEPS curriculum includes imitation and joint attention goals, albeit in less detail than in the IS curriculum.”
4 of 4

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Two p-values are given for the same VR joint test

    Minor

    The results give p=0.16 for the joint test of between-group differences in VR scores, then refer to that joint test as having p=0.13.

  • The abstract overstates the significance of time effects

    Minor

    The abstract says every outcome had a time-effect p-value below 0.001, whereas the results give a range extending to 0.01.

  • The IJA chi-square result conflicts with the reported significance

    Minor

    Both tests have three degrees of freedom, yet the reported IJA chi-square of 365 is much larger than the significant SEI chi-square of 9.98 while its reported p-value is much larger. With the same degrees of freedom, a larger chi-square cannot have a larger p-value.

  • The discussion attributes significant gains to both groups across outcomes

    Minor

    The discussion says both groups made significant gains in primary and secondary outcomes, but the results say the Non-IS group showed significant growth only in expressive language.

4 of 4

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Bricker D., 2002, Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System for Infants and Children: Birth to Three Years
  2. Hollingshead A.B., 1975, Four factor index of social position
  3. Sparrow S.S., 1984, Vineland adaptive behavior scales: Interview edition survey form manual

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Landa, R. J., Holman, K. C., O’Neill, A. H., & Stuart, E. A.
Affiliations
  • Kennedy Krieger Institute (US)
  • Towson University (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-12-03
Volume
52
Issue
1
Pages
13-21
ISSN
  • 0021-9630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7610
DOI
10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02288.x
PMC
PMC3059234
OpenAlex
W2165585388
Semantic Scholar
dead6a974b2fc69bcad4aa0d9307ff91bd281b7a
Cited by
353
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 25
FWCI
11.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (U54MH066417)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
autism spectrum disorder, toddlers, joint attention, affect sharing, eye contact, social communication intervention, expressive language, nonverbal cognition, developmental plasticity, parent training
MeSH terms
Behavior Therapy, Child Development Disorders, Pervasive, Child, Preschool, Cognition, Communication, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Imitative Behavior, Infant, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Parents, Verbal Behavior, Treatment Outcome

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

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