The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 30 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
A randomized controlled trial of Hanen's ‘More Than Words’ in toddlers with early autism symptoms
Open accessAbstract
Background: This randomized controlled trial compared Hanen’s ‘More than Words’ (HMTW), a parent‐implemented intervention, to a ‘business as usual’ control group. Methods: Sixty‐two children (51 boys and 11 girls; M age = 20 months; SD = 2.6) who met criteria for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and their parents participated in the study. The HMTW intervention was provided over 3.5 months. There were three measurement periods: prior to randomization (Time 1) and at 5 and 9 months post enrollment (Times 2 and 3). Children’s communication and parental responsivity were measured at each time point. Children’s object interest, a putative moderator, was measured at Time 1. Results: There were no main effects of the HMTW intervention on either parental responsivity or children’s communication. However, the effects on residualized gains in parental responsivity from Time 1 to both Times 2 and 3 yielded noteworthy effect sizes (Glass’s Δ = .71, .50 respectively). In contrast, there were treatment effects on child communication gains to Time 3 that were moderated by children’s Time 1 object interest. Children with lower levels of Time 1 object interest exhibited facilitated growth in communication; children with higher levels of object interest exhibited growth attenuation. Conclusions: The HMTW intervention showed differential effects on child communication depending on a baseline child factor. HMTW facilitated communication in children with lower levels of Time 1 object interest. Parents of children who evidence higher object interest may require greater support to implement the HMTW strategies, or may require different strategies than those provided by the HMTW curriculum.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This randomized controlled trial found no main effects of Hanen’s ‘More Than Words’ (HMTW) on parental responsivity or toddler communication compared with a ‘business as usual’ control group. However, child communication gains were moderated by baseline object interest: children with lower object interest showed facilitated growth, while those with higher object interest showed attenuated growth.
Key findings
- In 62 toddlers with ASD symptoms (51 boys, 11 girls; mean age 20 months, SD = 2.6), HMTW did not produce statistically significant main effects on parental responsivity or child communication.
- Parental responsivity residualized gains from Time 1 to Time 2 and Time 1 to Time 3 had noteworthy effect sizes (Glass’s Δ = .71 and .50, respectively), though these did not reach conventional significance (p = .08 and p = .09).
- Time 1 object interest moderated treatment effects on child communication from Time 1 to Time 3: children who played with fewer than three toys at Time 1 showed greater gains in initiating joint attention, initiating behavior requests, and weighted intentional communication if randomized to HMTW; children who played with more than five or six toys (depending on outcome) showed lower gains if randomized to HMTW.
- For parent-reported nonverbal communication, only the higher region of significance was interpretable: parents of children who played with at least six toys at Time 1 reported more limited growth if randomized to HMTW rather than control.
- Consumer satisfaction was high: mean ratings of 5.48 out of 6 on the group experience questionnaire and 3.46 out of 4 on the group leader experience questionnaire.
Methods
- Randomized controlled trial comparing HMTW, a parent-implemented intervention delivered over 3.5 months (eight group sessions and three individual family sessions), to a ‘business as usual’ control group. Sixty-two children were randomized (32 HMTW, 30 control); 55 had follow-up data (89% retention), analyzed as ‘partial’ intent to treat.
- Measurements occurred at Time 1 (pre-randomization), Time 2 (approximately 5.3 months after Time 1), and Time 3 (approximately 9.3 months after Time 1). Outcomes included parental responsivity from the Parent–Child Free Play procedure; child communication from the Early Social Communication Scales (initiating joint attention, initiating behavior requests), Parent–Child Free Play weighted intentional communication, and Parent Interview for Autism–Clinical Version nonverbal communication.
- Object interest was measured at Time 1 using the Developmental Play Assessment (number of toys with differentiated play). Main analyses used residualized gain scores, independent-sample t-tests, hierarchical linear regression, and empirically derived regions of significance.
Limitations
- The paper states that group size was not commensurate with Hanen recommendations (mean 3.57 families per session; range 1–10; standard minimum of 8), which may have compromised learning opportunities and social support.
- Statistical power was constrained for several outcome measures due to child non-compliance, technical problems, and experimenter error; a full intent-to-treat design with imputation was not pursued.
- The paper notes that conditional effects were exploratory, regions of significance varied by outcome, and replication is essential before using results to select treatments for individual children.
- The text also makes evident that the Time 1 parental responsivity ICC was relatively low (.46), and the sample was small, limiting precision.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
46 Own result · 29 Own method · 24 Not checked yet · 15 Own interpretation · 2 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, there were treatment effects on child communication gains to Time 3 that were moderated by children’s Time 1 object interest.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“The HMTW intervention showed differential effects on child communication depending on a baseline child factor.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Children with lower levels of Time 1 object interest exhibited facilitated growth in communication; children with higher levels of object interest exhibited growth attenuation.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Children with lower levels of Time 1 object interest exhibited facilitated growth in communication; children with higher levels of object interest exhibited growth attenuation.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“HMTW facilitated communication in children with lower levels of Time 1 object interest.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main effects of the HMTW intervention on change in parental responsivity from Time 1 to Time 2 and from Time 1 to Time 3 did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance, t(1, 31) = 1.8, p = .08 and t(1, 35) = 1.8, p = .09, respectively.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As expected, there were no effects of HMTW on gains from Time 1 to Time 2.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Time 1 object interest (i.e., the number of toys children played with in a differentiated, or functional, manner) moderated four communication outcomes: observed gains in initiating joint attention, initiating behavioral requests, weighted intentional communication, and parent-reported gains in nonverbal communication.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Children who played with fewer than three toys at Time 1 exhibited greater gains in IJA, IBR and weighted frequency of intentional communication if they were randomized to the HMTW intervention group rather than to the control group.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is, parents of children who played with at least six toys at Time 1 reported more limited growth in nonverbal communication if they were randomized to the HMTW group rather than to the control group.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Effect sizes, however, were in the medium to large range at both time points, Glass’s (1977) Δ = .71 and .50, respectively.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Glass’s (1977)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Table 3 and Figure 2, object interest moderated treatment effects on the residualized gain scores from Time 1 to Time 3 for IJA, t(45) = −3.38, p = .002, IBR, t(45) = −3.41, p < .01, PIA-CV non-verbal communication, t(42) = −2.39, p = .02, and PCFP weighted frequency of intentional communication, t(29) = −3.39, p = .003.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Table 3 and Figure 2, object interest moderated treatment effects on the residualized gain scores from Time 1 to Time 3 for IJA, t(45) = −3.38, p = .002, IBR, t(45) = −3.41, p < .01, PIA-CV non-verbal communication, t(42) = −2.39, p = .02, and PCFP weighted frequency of intentional communication, t(29) = −3.39, p = .003.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Children who played with fewer than three toys at Time 1 exhibited greater gains in IJA, IBR and weighted frequency of intentional communication if they were randomized to the HMTW intervention group rather than to the control group.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ninety-two percent of children who received Time 3 evaluations (46/50) met criteria for an ASD based on both the ADOS and DSM-IV-based clinical impression.”
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, Time 1 initiating joint attention and initiating behavioral requests (i.e., IJA and IBR) did not moderate the treatment effect on gains in any child communication outcomes from Time 1 to Time 3.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Children who played with fewer than three toys at Time 1 exhibited greater gains in IJA, IBR and weighted frequency of intentional communication if they were randomized to the HMTW intervention group rather than to the control group.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Facilitation was present for three observed outcomes at low levels of object interest.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consumer satisfaction was extremely high, with mean ratings of 5.48 (out of 6) on the group experience questionnaire and 3.46 (out of 4) on the group leader experience questionnaire.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, children randomized to the HMTW intervention who played with more than five to six toys (depending on the outcome examined) showed more limited growth in all three observed communication outcomes and in parent-reported nonverbal communication outcome.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main effects of the HMTW intervention on change in parental responsivity from Time 1 to Time 2 and from Time 1 to Time 3 did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance, t(1, 31) = 1.8, p = .08 and t(1, 35) = 1.8, p = .09, respectively.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Table 3 and Figure 2, object interest moderated treatment effects on the residualized gain scores from Time 1 to Time 3 for IJA, t(45) = −3.38, p = .002, IBR, t(45) = −3.41, p < .01, PIA-CV non-verbal communication, t(42) = −2.39, p = .02, and PCFP weighted frequency of intentional communication, t(29) = −3.39, p = .003.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, those children who played with greater than five or six toys (depending on the outcome) at Time 1 showed lower gains in IJA, IBR and weighted frequency of intentional communication if they were randomized to the HMTW group rather than to the control group (see Figure 2.A, 2.B, and 2.C. for specific regions of significance).”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The pattern of results for residualized gain scores in nonverbal communication was more restricted in that only the higher region of significance was interpretable (see Figure 2.D).”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, those children who played with greater than five or six toys (depending on the outcome) at Time 1 showed lower gains in IJA, IBR and weighted frequency of intentional communication if they were randomized to the HMTW group rather than to the control group (see Figure 2.A, 2.B, and 2.C. for specific regions of significance).”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, empirically derived regions of significance vary according to the outcome assessed.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Effect sizes, however, were in the medium to large range at both time points, Glass’s (1977) Δ = .71 and .50, respectively.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Glass’s (1977)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Table 3 and Figure 2, object interest moderated treatment effects on the residualized gain scores from Time 1 to Time 3 for IJA, t(45) = −3.38, p = .002, IBR, t(45) = −3.41, p < .01, PIA-CV non-verbal communication, t(42) = −2.39, p = .02, and PCFP weighted frequency of intentional communication, t(29) = −3.39, p = .003.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, Time 1 initiating joint attention and initiating behavioral requests (i.e., IJA and IBR) did not moderate the treatment effect on gains in any child communication outcomes from Time 1 to Time 3.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, those children who played with greater than five or six toys (depending on the outcome) at Time 1 showed lower gains in IJA, IBR and weighted frequency of intentional communication if they were randomized to the HMTW group rather than to the control group (see Figure 2.A, 2.B, and 2.C. for specific regions of significance).”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Counter to our expectations, there were no main effects of the HMTW intervention on residualized gains in child communication from Time 1 to Time 3 (see Table 2).”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall (independent of treatment group), parents exhibited moderate increases in their responsivity from Time 1 to Time 2, d = .55, t(32) = 2.88, p = .007”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, object interest at Time 1 moderated the treatment effect on the residualized gain for several communication variables from Time 1 to Time 3, indicating that the impact of participating in HMTW on child communication depended on children’s level of object interest at study entry.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, despite conducting the study in three sites that varied significantly on service availability, there were no site-by-treatment interactions on study outcomes.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The gains in communication, which were evident both with parents and an unfamiliar examiner, are heartening, and highlight the critical role that parents can play and the potential utility of relatively low-intensity, well-designed, developmentally sensitive interventions.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In conclusion, there were no main effects of the treatment on child outcomes.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to note that, overall (i.e., across treatment groups), children showed moderate to large gains in all skills assessed.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, children with greater object interest showed more limited growth than those in the ‘business as usual’ group.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There is increasing evidence that early intervention improves outcomes for children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) (Rogers, 1998; Smith, Groen, & Wynn, 2000; Vismara & Rogers, 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rogers, 1998
- Not checked yetcites Smith, Groen, & Wynn, 2000
- Not checked yetcites Vismara & Rogers, 2010
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, object interest at Time 1 moderated the treatment effect on the residualized gain for several communication variables from Time 1 to Time 3, indicating that the impact of participating in HMTW on child communication depended on children’s level of object interest at study entry.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In another study on young children with autism, children with initially low object interest acquired superior communication skills during a responsivity-based treatment relative to a contrast treatment (Yoder & Stone, 2006b).”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yoder & Stone, 2006b
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Although not statistically significant, the magnitudes of effect sizes of the intervention on parenting responsivity were consistent with the findings of McConachie and colleagues (2005).”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites McConachie and colleagues (2005)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were no significant differences in attendance of non-project treatments between the HMTW and ‘business as usual’ groups at any measurement period (all ps > .10).”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The effect sizes observed also appear to be consistent with Green et al.’s (2010) report of a treatment effect for parental synchronous response to child in an RCT of a similar parent-mediated, communication-focused, intervention of higher intensity.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Green et al.’s (2010)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, while content fidelity of administration was high, group composition size did not adhere to the HMTW standard of a minimum of 8 families per group.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings, across multiple child outcomes, raise concerns about the general appropriateness of the HMTW intervention in very young toddlers with symptoms consistent with an ASD.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The lack of a main effect of treatment on communication outcomes is consistent with Oosterling and colleagues’ randomized clinical trial of a different parent-mediated intervention with somewhat older preschoolers with ASD (Oosterling et al., 2010).”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Oosterling et al., 2010
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The internal consistency of the Nonverbal Communication domain in this sample ranged from Cronbach’s alpha of .85 to .87, depending on the assessment time point.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Both studies reported positive gains in parenting behaviors.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Girolametto, Sussman, & Weitzman, 2007
- Not checked yetcites McConachie, Randle, Hammal, & Le Couteur, 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was no evidence for differential attrition for any study outcome (all ps > .10).”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In our past research with preschoolers with ASD, this measure of object interest moderated treatment effects on expressive communication (Yoder & Stone, 2006b).”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yoder & Stone, 2006b
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Further, because communicative competence in early childhood is associated with positive long-term outcomes (e.g., Billstedt, Gillberg, & Gillberg, 2007), we were particularly interested in an intervention that was focused on communication.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Billstedt, Gillberg, & Gillberg, 2007
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The HTMW intervention does not seem to be effective for all families.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such results remind us that low-intensity parent-implemented treatments may not be the best treatment for all children with ASD.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The HTMW intervention did not benefit all children.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Additionally, it should be noted that other studies of parent-implemented treatments have found similar unexpected effects (i.e., experimental group results lower than control group results).”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the mean fidelity of treatment implementation was high with respect to measured HMTW content and interventionist quality, and parents rated the HMTW intervention and group leaders extremely favorably, the size of the parent groups was not commensurate with Hanen recommendations.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, although overall study attrition was low and there was no evidence of differential attrition across the treatment and control groups, statistical power was constrained for several outcome measures due to child non-compliance, technical problems, and experimenter error; due to the extent of missing data a full intent to treat design with imputation was not pursued.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the mean fidelity of treatment implementation was high with respect to measured HMTW content and interventionist quality, and parents rated the HMTW intervention and group leaders extremely favorably, the size of the parent groups was not commensurate with Hanen recommendations.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The finding that the HMTW intervention led to increased frequency of initiating joint attention and behavioral requesting acts, albeit limited to children with low initial object interest, suggests that these children were able to transfer skills learned with their parents to the novel (i.e., untrained) context of interaction with an unfamiliar examiner in the ESCS.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Children entering the study with limited object interest benefited from HMTW.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although our use of measures that were closely linked to the intervention goals is a strength, the use of non-norm referenced instruments for both child and parent outcomes limits clinical interpretation.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, although overall study attrition was low and there was no evidence of differential attrition across the treatment and control groups, statistical power was constrained for several outcome measures due to child non-compliance, technical problems, and experimenter error; due to the extent of missing data a full intent to treat design with imputation was not pursued.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, although overall study attrition was low and there was no evidence of differential attrition across the treatment and control groups, statistical power was constrained for several outcome measures due to child non-compliance, technical problems, and experimenter error; due to the extent of missing data a full intent to treat design with imputation was not pursued.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 33
- Probably not a substantial claim. 24
- The quote only partly states this claim. 5
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were no main effects of the HMTW intervention on either parental responsivity or children’s communication.”
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the effects on residualized gains in parental responsivity from Time 1 to both Times 2 and 3 yielded noteworthy effect sizes (Glass’s Δ = .71, .50 respectively).”
plaincorrelationaln = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consumer satisfaction was extremely high, with mean ratings of 5.48 (out of 6) on the group experience questionnaire and 3.46 (out of 4) on the group leader experience questionnaire.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, children’s increases in communication from Time 1 to Time 3 were moderate (IJA d = .43, IBR d = .55), large (weighted frequency of intentional communication, d = .77), and very large (PIA-CV nonverbal communication d = 1.15), ps < .05.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, children’s increases in communication from Time 1 to Time 3 were moderate (IJA d = .43, IBR d = .55), large (weighted frequency of intentional communication, d = .77), and very large (PIA-CV nonverbal communication d = 1.15), ps < .05.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although no main effects of treatment were observed on child outcomes in the current study, exploratory analyses revealed several significant conditional effects.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, children’s increases in communication from Time 1 to Time 3 were moderate (IJA d = .43, IBR d = .55), large (weighted frequency of intentional communication, d = .77), and very large (PIA-CV nonverbal communication d = 1.15), ps < .05.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, children’s increases in communication from Time 1 to Time 3 were moderate (IJA d = .43, IBR d = .55), large (weighted frequency of intentional communication, d = .77), and very large (PIA-CV nonverbal communication d = 1.15), ps < .05.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and showed moderate decreases in responsivity during the follow-up period (from Time 2 to Time 3) d = −.44, t(38) = −2.4; p = .02.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In predicting residualized gains in IJA, IBR and PCFP weighted frequency of intentional communication, both higher and lower regions of significance were interpretable.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the current study, there were no main effects of treatment on child outcomes immediately after the parent-implemented treatment or 5 months after treatment.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although we had expected joint attention to moderate the effects of the HMTW intervention on child outcomes, none of the interactions were statistically significant.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the mean fidelity of treatment implementation was high with respect to measured HMTW content and interventionist quality, and parents rated the HMTW intervention and group leaders extremely favorably, the size of the parent groups was not commensurate with Hanen recommendations.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Communicative and social deficits are not only core to ASD, but are among the first symptoms observed (Zwaigenbaum et al., 2009).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zwaigenbaum et al., 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“To date, however, very few intervention studies have focused on the toddler period, with positive findings for the efficacy of the Early Start Denver Model (ESDM) providing a notable exception (Dawson et al., 2010; Vismara & Rogers, 2008).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dawson et al., 2010
- Not checked yetcites Vismara & Rogers, 2008
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In contrast to interventions for preschool-aged and older children with ASD, there is consensus that parents should be involved in interventions designed for infants and toddlers (Meadan, Ostrosky, Zaghlawan, & Yu, 2009; Zwaigenbaum et al., 2009).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Meadan, Ostrosky, Zaghlawan, & Yu, 2009
- Not checked yetcites Zwaigenbaum et al., 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Green et al. noted, however, that the positive effects of treatment observed were (thus far) limited to the parent–child dyad, and did not appear to generalize to interactions with other adults.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Green et al.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Previous research has indicated that the weighted variable is more sensitive to change over time than the unweighted variable and that growth in the weighted variable (but not the unweighted variable) was predictive of later social impairment in younger siblings of children with ASD (Yoder, Stone, Walden, & Malesa, 2009).”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yoder, Stone, Walden, & Malesa, 2009
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ICCs on proportion of codable intervals with a parental response were .46 at Time 1, .84 at Time 2, and .75 at Time 3.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The original PIA (Stone & Hogan, 1993) demonstrated strong psychometric properties for children between 20 months and 5 years, 11 months.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Stone & Hogan, 1993
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Owing to child non-compliance, technical problems, and human error, the number of participants with valid outcome data differs across the measures, influencing power (see Table 2).”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These conditional effects were exploratory in nature.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ICCs for weighted triadic communication were based on blind, independent codings of a random selection of approximately 20% of the sessions at each time period and were .95, .97, and .99 for Times 1, 2, and 3, respectively.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Coding for all videotaped procedures was completed by coders who were blind to treatment group using software that enables computer control of digital recordings (ProcoderDV; Tapp & Walden, 1993).”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, it is possible that the current sample’s limited joint attention skills, which were sampled only in the ESCS, constrained this potential moderator’s variability.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is, children who entered the study with more limited object interest appear to have benefited, while children with greater object interest showed attenuated growth.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All participants with pre-treatment data and data from at least one of the follow-up periods were included in analyses, irrespective of HMTW treatment attendance.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These effects indicated that the HMTW intervention was facilitative of communication for some children, but attenuated growth in communication for others.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No statistically significant main effects of site or siteby-treatment interactions were observed for any of the outcome variables (all ps > .20).”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The case series reported a range of positive outcomes for children and the quasi-experimental study reported positive gains in observed parenting behaviors and parents’ reports of the number of words children used.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Girolametto, Sussman, & Weitzman, 2007
- Not checked yetcites McConachie, Randle, Hammal, & Le Couteur, 2005
plainn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interobserver reliability was estimated through blind, independent codings of a random selection of approximately 20% of the sessions at each time period.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interobserver reliability was estimated through blind, independent codings of a random selection of approximately 20% of the sessions at Time 1 (ICC = .87).”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were no differences between the HMTW and ‘business as usual’ groups on sociodemographic characteristics or on any Time 1 measures of the experimental or clinical child variables (all ps > .10) (see Table 2).”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The treatment that facilitated linguistic communication for children with low object interest also effectively taught object play skills; the contrasting treatment did not teach object play (McDuffie, Lieberman, & Yoder, in press).”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites McDuffie, Lieberman, & Yoder, in press
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Families were randomized within each site using software that utilized a random number generator to assign children to the intervention or control group.”
plainn = 62- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“A second recent study also assessed a parent-mediated communication-focused treatment in preschool-aged children with autism (Green et al., 2010), and found no main effects of the treatment on autism severity, clinical language measures, or teacher ratings of adaptive communication.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Green et al., 2010
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“There was, however, a medium effect size of the intervention on observed child social communication, similar to the behaviors coded in the current study as well as on parent-reported child communication.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Green et al., 2010
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In previous work in which IJA did moderate the effect of treatment on outcome (Yoder & Stone, 2006a), IJA was assessed across two contexts and the children were somewhat older.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yoder & Stone, 2006a
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) for number of IJA and IBR were .93 and .68 at Time 1, .95 and .96 at Time 2, and .95 and .99 at Time 3, respectively.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across sites, HMTW was implemented with 88% (SD = 4.7) of intended elements present in the group sessions and 89.9% (SD = 7.9) of intended elements in the individual sessions.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Object interest is important to responsivity-based treatments because teaching episodes tend to occur in object-oriented joint action routines and because providing access to objects contingent on child communication is frequently used as a functional reward.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The metric that supports the clinical significance of these findings is the presence of moderate to large effect sizes for the parental responsivity outcome and the child outcome moderation effects, which meet or exceed the usual benchmark of .50 for determining clinically meaningful effects (Hill, Bloom, Black, & Lipsey, 2008; Wolf, 1986).”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hill, Bloom, Black, & Lipsey, 2008
- Not checked yetcites Wolf, 1986
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, analyses documenting pre-treatment equivalence on measures of child, family and non-project interventions, along with a lack of differential attrition across the HMTW intervention and ‘business as usual’ control groups, raise confidence in the internal validity of the study.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, although overall study attrition was low and there was no evidence of differential attrition across the treatment and control groups, statistical power was constrained for several outcome measures due to child non-compliance, technical problems, and experimenter error; due to the extent of missing data a full intent to treat design with imputation was not pursued.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The use of an experimental design and ‘partial’ intent to treat analyses are strengths of this study.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, some children showed clear gains in communication that were associated with being randomized to the intervention while others showed attenuation in communication growth.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Children with ASD who have limited object interest may be particularly well suited to the HMTW approach, which emphasizes teaching parents to show their child what is interesting about toys and to prompt, wait for, and respond to requests.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, parental sensitivity training (a part of which is responsivity training) resulted in attenuated growth on parental sensitivity and attenuated reduction on child aggression in certain subgroups of participants in a study by Stolk et al. (2008).”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Stolk et al. (2008)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This circumstance may have compromised the potential learning opportunities and social supports that emerge in group sessions with a larger number of parent participants.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although nonsignificant effects can occur due to low within-site sample size, the findings of this randomized controlled trial of the HMTW intervention are compatible with the hypothesis that the current findings are generalizable to a relatively broad range of settings in the United States.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An additional methodological strength is the multi-method assessment of child communication that was employed.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, the majority of assessors and all observational coding of children’s behavior were blind to treatment condition.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This study measured communication during parent–child interactions, examiner–child interactions, and via parental report.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The lack of overall treatment effects on child outcomes may be due to the relatively low intensity of the HMTW intervention, or to the non-optimal implementation due to smaller than recommended group size.”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The HMTW intervention is relatively low intensity.
The paper relies on this without support.
Parent involvement can capitalize on teachable moments as they occur, provide learning opportunities during naturally occurring routines, and facilitate the generalization of child learning across contexts.
“Specifically, there is recognition that parent involvement can capitalize on teachable moments as they occur, provide learning opportunities during naturally occurring routines, and facilitate the generalization of child learning across contexts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Parent-mediated intervention has the potential to be relatively inexpensive and to increase parents' sense of efficacy and empowerment.
“Additionally, parent-mediated intervention has the potential to be relatively inexpensive and to increase parents’ sense of efficacy and empowerment.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Children with ASD are unlikely to benefit unless maintenance of enhanced parenting practices occurs.
“In addition, measuring the endurance of such effects several months after treatment ends is important because children with ASD are unlikely to benefit unless such maintenance of enhanced parenting practices occurs.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The HMTW intervention is relatively low intensity.
“The lack of overall treatment effects on child outcomes may be due to the relatively low intensity of the HMTW intervention, or to the non-optimal implementation due to smaller than recommended group size.”
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?
In the citing paper
“but neither study found significant main effects on language outcomes for the experimental intervention compared to a no-treatment control group.22,23”
From Longitudinal follow-up of children with autism receiving targeted interventions on joint attention and play (2012) · cites this paper as [23]
In the citing paper
“Active family involvement can have a positive impact on developmental outcomes.”
From Early Intervention for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder Under 3 Years of Age: Recommendations for Practice and Research (2015) · cites this paper as [15]
In the citing paper
“In both studies, a measure developed to index the level of initial object exploration determined the extent to which a child would benefit more from 1 language-based intervention versus another 35 or the extent to which children had better communication outcomes from a parent-mediated intervention. 15”
From Early Intervention for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder Under 3 Years of Age: Recommendations for Practice and Research (2015) · cites this paper as [15]
In the citing paper
“Treatment modifiers were recently identified in 2 studies based on appropriate study design and statistical analysis.”
From Early Intervention for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder Under 3 Years of Age: Recommendations for Practice and Research (2015) · cites this paper as [15]
Statistics that don’t add up
Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“t(29) = −3.39, p = .003”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
Reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .002
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Doesn’t add upt(29) = -3.39reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .002
“t(29) = −3.39, p = .003”
- Consistentt(32) = 2.88reported p = .007 · recomputed p = .007
“t(32) = 2.88, p = .007”
- Consistentt(45) = -3.38reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002
“t(45) = −3.38, p = .002”
- Consistentt(45) = -3.41reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .001
“t(45) = −3.41, p < .01”
- Consistentt(42) = -2.39reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .021
“t(42) = −2.39, p = .02”
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
“A Consumer Satisfaction Survey was developed for this study. Caregivers randomized to the HMTW intervention were asked to complete 11 questions (on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 6) describing their experience with the HMTW group leader (e.g., pacing, useful exercises) and 17 questions (on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 4) describing their experience of group’s climate (i.e., cohesion, support).”
§ Abstract > 13.60 ± 4.89 (4.00–21.00)
“Consumer satisfaction was extremely high, with mean ratings of 5.48 (out of 6) on the group experience questionnaire and 3.46 (out of 4) on the group leader experience questionnaire.”
Citations
Cites
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983) · Cited by 79,882
Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-3352 · Cited by 36,647
Lord, C., Risi, S., Lambrecht, L., Cook, E. H., Leventhal, B. L., DiLavore, P. C., Pickles, A., & Rutter, M. (2000) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1023/a:1005592401947 · Cited by 7,520
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006) · Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics · doi:10.3102/10769986031004437 · Cited by 5,044
Cohen, J. (1994) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.49.12.997 · Cited by 4,003
Dawson, G., Rogers, S., Munson, J., Smith, M., Winter, J., Greenson, J., Donaldson, A., & Varley, J. (2010) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0958 · Cited by 2,835
Mullen Scales of Early Learning
Bradley‐Johnson, S. (1997) · Psychology in the Schools · doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6807(199710)34:4 · Cited by 2,329
Meta-Analysis: Quantitative Methods for Research Synthesis
Rosenthal, R., & Wolf, F. M. (1987) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2071646 · Cited by 1,371
Empirical Benchmarks for Interpreting Effect Sizes in Research
Hill, C. J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W. (2008) · Child Development Perspectives · doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00061.x · Cited by 950
Green, J., Charman, T., McConachie, H., Aldred, C., Slonims, V., Howlin, P., Le Couteur, A., Leadbitter, K., Hudry, K., Byford, S., et al. (2010) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60587-9 · Cited by 857
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- McDuffie A., Object interest in young children with autism spectrum disorders. A randomized treatment comparison, Autism
- Mundy P., 2003, A manual for the abridged Early Social Communication Scales (ESCS)
- Sparrow S., 2005, Vineland‐II: Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Survey forms manual
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lord, C., Elsabbagh, M., Baird, G., & Veenstra-Vanderweele, J. (2018) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31129-2 · Cited by 2,819
Wong, C., Odom, S. L., Hume, K. A., Cox, A. W., Fettig, A., Kucharczyk, S., Brock, M. E., Plavnick, J. B., Fleury, V. P., & Schultz, T. R. (2015) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-014-2351-z · Cited by 1,584
The Lancet Commission on the future of care and clinical research in autism
Lord, C., Charman, T., Havdahl, A., Carbone, P., Anagnostou, E., Boyd, B., Carr, T., de Vries, P. J., Dissanayake, C., Divan, G., et al. (2022) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)01541-5 · Cited by 924
Zwaigenbaum, L., Bauman, M. L., Choueiri, R., Kasari, C., Carter, A., Granpeesheh, D., Mailloux, Z., Smith Roley, S., Wagner, S., Fein, D., et al. (2015) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2014-3667e · Cited by 856
Self-citationProject AIM: Autism intervention meta-analysis for studies of young children.
Sandbank, M., Bottema-Beutel, K., Crowley, S., Cassidy, M., Dunham, K., Feldman, J. I., Crank, J., Albarran, S. A., Raj, S., Mahbub, P., et al. (2020) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000215 · Cited by 606
Metadata
- Authors
- Carter, A. S., Messinger, D. S., Stone, W. L., Celimli, S., Nahmias, A. S., & Yoder, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Massachusetts Boston (US)
- University of Miami (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-03-22
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 741-752
- ISSN
- 0021-9630 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7610
- PMC
- PMC4783130
- OpenAlex
- W2112804906
- Semantic Scholar
- 0bfbabb60a495bfd07a1f36bf0a62191b352dbfe
- Cited by
- 446
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 68 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 21
- FWCI
- 15.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Autism Speaks (AS1718)
- Autism Research Institute
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
- Keywords
- autism spectrum disorder, toddlers, parent-mediated intervention, children's communication, parental responsiveness, moderation, early intervention
- MeSH terms
- Attention, Child Development Disorders, Pervasive, Child, Preschool, Combined Modality Therapy, Communication, Education, Family Therapy, Female, Humans, Infant, Language Development Disorders, Male, Parent-Child Relations, Play and Playthings, Psychotherapy, Group, Early Intervention, Educational
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
