Comparison of Mathematics Problem-Solving Abilities in Autistic and Non-autistic Children: the Influence of Cognitive Profile.
Irene Polo-Blanco, Paula Suárez-Pinilla, Juncal Goñi-Cervera and 2 others
PMID 36319804WHAT IT FOUND
Autistic and non-autistic children did not differ in math problem-solving strategy or accuracy.
The study also found more autistic children in the lowest accuracy group, but this was a subgroup observation, not evidence that a therapy works.
Key findings
01Across the whole sample, the two groups did not differ in problem-solving strategy or accuracy.
02In the average-FSIQ subgroup, autistic children showed better adjusted strategy and accuracy scores than non-autistic children.
03Among autistic children, those with 25% or fewer correct answers used less advanced strategies and had lower verbal comprehension, inhibition, and theory-of-mind scores than other autistic children.
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 included only 26 children in each group, and 12 of 38 initially recruited autistic children were excluded, so the results may not apply to broader groups. The autistic group had lower baseline IQ and mathematical age than the non-autistic group, even though both were matched on age, sex, school, and grade; analyses adjusted for these, but the groups were not equal. The positive findings came from small subgroups, such as the average-FSIQ subset and the poorer-performer subset, so they are exploratory and could change with more participants. The MPI problem-solving test was not validated for autism spectrum disorder in this study. The design was cross-sectional and measured associations, not whether any therapy or training improved math problem solving. The sample was from one Spanish region, and the authors note that language of instruction may affect mathematical problem solving. The study excluded children with comorbidities, so it may not reflect many autistic children seen in routine practice.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the 57% versus 23% lowest-accuracy finding as proof of a general math deficit. The overall strategy and accuracy comparison was null, the sample was small, and no intervention was tested.