Definitions of Nonverbal and Minimally Verbal in Research for Autism: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

The review did not combine outcomes because the studies used very different definitions and measures, so it cannot tell which intervention helps which child. Many included studies were small, lacked clear descriptions of participants, and did not replicate the finding. The review excluded studies that used AAC only, so it does not address augmentative and alternative communication treatments. Some relevant studies may have been missed because the search words did not include all terms used to describe this population. The review did not test whether interventions improved verbal communication; it focused on how studies defined nonverbal and minimally verbal status.

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The paper states that no ethics review was needed because no human subjects participated.

Do not read this review as evidence that any treatment works for nonverbal or minimally verbal people with autism. It describes how inconsistently studies defined and measured those labels, and it could not combine outcomes across studies.