Mutual Gaze: An Active Ingredient for Social Development in Toddlers with ASD: A Randomized Control Trial.
Pamela Rosenthal Rollins, Adrienne De Froy, Michelle Campbell and 1 others
PMID 32894382WHAT IT FOUND
Parent coaching that targets mutual gaze improved social engagement more than coaching that targets communication or usual community services.
Neither active coaching method improved total communication scores compared to each other, though both showed benefits over usual care.
Key findings
01The Pathways group showed significantly greater improvement in social eye gaze and Vineland Socialization scores compared to the Services-As-Usual control group.
02When compared to a communication-focused intervention, the mutual-gaze Pathways group showed significantly greater improvement in social eye gaze and Vineland Socialization, but no significant difference in total communication acts.
03There was no significant difference in total communication change scores between the Pathways group and the Services-As-Usual group.
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 not powered to detect small effects. Parents were not blinded to the intervention, which may bias parent-report outcomes like the Vineland. The SAU group received significantly more therapy hours on average (6.65 h/week) than the coaching groups (1.5 h/week), making it difficult to separate the effect of the coaching method from the intensity of intervention. The intervention period was short (12 weeks) with no follow-up to assess maintenance of gains. Assessments were conducted by researchers who were not blinded to group assignment at post-intervention.
Declared interests
Funding from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. No other conflicts declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that parent-mediated coaching improves total communication quantity better than usual care. The study found no significant difference in the composite measure of communicative acts between the Pathways coaching group and the Services-As-Usual group.