How Do Speech-Language Pathology Social Communication Interventions Incorporate the Strengths and Perspectives of Autistic Children and Their Families: A Scoping Review.
Maya Albin, Peter Rosenbaum, Eniola Bode-Akinboye and 2 others
Autism was described through deficits in 22 of 26 SLP social communication studies.
No study included a child's own view on goals or outcomes. Parent input was common but limited to picking from pre-set options.
Key findings
1In 22 studies, autism was framed solely through deficits. Only three studies mentioned strengths alongside deficits, such as visual learning skills, preferences for structured tasks, and sustained interests.
2No study included a child's own perspective on intervention goals or outcome measures. Only two studies let children choose an activity element: selecting a peer partner or a conversation topic.
3Parent input appeared in most studies but typically meant choosing from pre-set options within a fixed intervention protocol, not making decisions about the intervention's purpose or direction.
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
No autistic people were on the authorship team; the team consisted of neurotypical healthcare providers and researchers. Most included studies focused on young children (ages 1-12); only one study included participants older than 12, so findings may not apply to adolescents and young adults. Gray literature from non-English sources was translated using automatic browser translation rather than a professional translator, so relevant documents may have been missed. The review relied on authors' own labeling of interventions as 'social communication' focused, and the term is operationalized very differently across studies (conversation, AAC, executive function, play). The review reports what authors wrote in their papers, which may differ from what actually happened in therapy sessions with children and families.
Declared interests
Funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada doctoral scholarship (M.A.). No conflicts of interest declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this review as evidence that SLP social communication interventions are ineffective or harmful. The review examines how the literature describes autism and involves children and families, not whether the interventions produce outcomes. The 26 studies varied in design and quality, and the findings are about the language and process of the research, not the efficacy of the treatments.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →