Introduction
Children on the autism spectrum often face challenges in social communication and interaction, which can affect their daily functioning and well-being. However, there is hope for these children, as a recent study has shown that two social interventions can lead to significant and lasting improvements in their social skills, emotion recognition, and autism features.
The Study
Researchers followed up on a previous randomized trial that compared a school social intervention and a summer social intervention for children on the autism spectrum without intellectual disability.
The school social intervention was a 14-week program that involved small-group sessions led by trained therapists, focusing on teaching social skills, social problem-solving, and social-emotional understanding. The summer social intervention was a 5-week program that involved a combination of small-group sessions, recreational activities, and community outings, aiming to enhance social engagement and generalization of skills.
The previous trial found that the school social intervention yielded significantly better outcomes than typical school programming (services-as-usual) for children on the autism spectrum immediately after the intervention. The children who received the school social intervention showed greater improvements in social skills, emotion recognition, and autism features, as measured by standardized tests and parent and teacher reports. The children who received the services-as-usual then completed the summer social intervention.
The Follow-Up
The follow-up study aimed to test the longer-term maintenance of effects for both groups of children who completed the two interventions. A total of 103 children (ages 6-12 years) on the autism spectrum enrolled and 102 completed the initial trial. Following the summer social intervention, 90 children from the original trial completed the follow-up study.
The researchers assessed the children at five time points: baseline, post-school intervention, post-summer intervention, and two follow-up points (1.25-4.25 years and 2.25-5.25 years after the interventions). They used the same measures as in the previous trial to evaluate the children’s social skills, emotion recognition, and autism features.
The Results
The follow-up study revealed that both groups of children maintained their post-intervention improvements over time. The researchers used longitudinal multilevel model analyses to compare the trajectories of the two groups and found no significant differences between them on any of the outcome measures. This means that the children who received the school social intervention did not lose their advantage over the children who received the services-as-usual, and that the children who received the summer social intervention caught up with the other group.
The researchers also explored whether child IQ, language level, and length of time since completing the intervention moderated the outcomes. They found no evidence that these factors influenced the results, suggesting that the interventions were effective for a wide range of children on the autism spectrum.
The Implications
The study has important implications for the field of autism intervention, as it demonstrates that both social interventions can produce positive and durable effects for children on the autism spectrum. The researchers suggest that the interventions may have enhanced the children’s social motivation and social learning, which in turn may have led to changes in their brain functioning and neural connectivity.
The study also highlights the need for more research on the long-term outcomes of social interventions for children on the autism spectrum, as well as the mechanisms underlying their effects. The researchers recommend that future studies should include more diverse samples, more frequent follow-up assessments, and more objective measures of social functioning.
The study concludes that both social interventions can be considered as evidence-based practices for improving social outcomes for children on the autism spectrum, and that they can be implemented in school and community settings with trained therapists and staff.
Faq
What is the difference between the school social intervention and the summer social intervention?
The school social intervention involved two 45-minute sessions per week for 14 weeks, with a ratio of one therapist to four children. The summer social intervention involved four 2-hour sessions per week for 5 weeks, with a ratio of one therapist to three children. The summer social intervention also included recreational activities, such as swimming and bowling, and community outings, such as visiting a museum and a park.
What were the main components of the interventions?
The interventions consisted of three main components: social skills instruction, social problem-solving, and social-emotional understanding. The social skills instruction involved teaching specific skills, such as initiating and maintaining conversations, making friends, and coping with emotions. The social problem-solving involved teaching strategies, such as identifying social problems, generating solutions, and evaluating outcomes. The social-emotional understanding involved teaching concepts, such as emotions, perspectives, and empathy.
How did the interventions differ from the typical school programming (services-as-usual) for children on the autism spectrum?
The interventions differed from the typical school programming (services-as-usual) for children on the autism spectrum in several ways, such as the content, the format, and the intensity. The content of the interventions was more focused and comprehensive, covering multiple aspects of social functioning, such as social skills, social problem-solving, and social-emotional understanding. The format of the interventions was more structured and standardized, following manualized and evidence-based protocols, and involving trained and supervised therapists. The intensity of the interventions was more optimal and consistent, providing sufficient dosage and frequency, and maintaining the attendance and engagement of the children.
Source:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-023-06221-1