Brief Report: Feasibility of the Probabilistic Reversal Learning Task as an Outcome Measure in an Intervention Trial for Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Lauren M Schmitt, John A Sweeney, Craig A Erickson and 1 others
PMID 34557984WHAT IT FOUND
The probabilistic reversal learning task was feasible and acceptable for children and adolescents with autism, with over 95% completing testing.
Performance improved after intervention, suggesting the task is sensitive to change in cognitive flexibility.
Key findings
01Over 95% of participants completed the probabilistic reversal learning task across study visits, demonstrating high feasibility.
02Participants required fewer trials to reach criterion and made fewer regressive errors after the intervention compared to baseline.
03Test-retest reliability was moderate to good, and no practice effects were observed between the screening and baseline visits.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was a pilot with a small sample size (n=62 initially, n=29 at final follow-up) and used a within-subjects design without a control group, so it is impossible to separate the effects of the intervention from natural development or long-term practice effects. The intervention, Regulating Together, is a multi-component program targeting emotion regulation, applied behavior analysis, and cognitive flexibility. The study cannot determine which specific component caused the changes in task performance. Participants with intellectual disability (IQ < 60) or those unable to communicate with complex speech were excluded, so the feasibility findings do not apply to this population. Acceptability was not formally assessed via questionnaires, only through behavioral observation. The study took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, which impacted participant availability and completion rates at later time points.
Declared interests
The study was funded by Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the improved performance on the reversal learning task as proof that the intervention caused the change. The study had no control group, so the improvements could be due to practice effects from repeated testing, natural development, or the passage of time, rather than the specific effects of Regulating Together.