Towards a Treatment for Intolerance of Uncertainty for Autistic Adults: A Single Case Experimental Design Study.
J Rodgers, R Herrema, E Honey and 1 others
PMID 29589271WHAT IT FOUND
Four autistic adults completed an adapted uncertainty programme, and all attended every session.
Confidence in handling a chosen uncertain situation generally increased for three participants, but changes were inconsistent and this was not an efficacy trial.
Key findings
01All participants attended every scheduled session and completed all outcome measures.
02When participants' daily confidence ratings were combined, increases from baseline to intervention and intervention to follow-up were significant, but only two of eight individual phase comparisons were significant.
03Participants reported that the flexibility and individualisation of the programme were helpful.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
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
Only four autistic adults were studied, so the results cannot show whether the programme works for most autistic adults. The study was designed to test feasibility and acceptability, not efficacy, so outcome changes should not be treated as proof of benefit. Daily confidence ratings were individualised, with different scales and target situations, so comparisons between participants were difficult. Only two of eight individual phase comparisons were significant, and the significant combined result came from pooling four participants. Follow-up was at least 4 weeks, with no longer-term data, so maintenance beyond that period is unknown. Participant 4 was beginning university during the intervention, so major life changes may have affected his results.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the significant combined confidence increase as proof that CUES-A works. Only four participants were studied, only two of eight individual phase comparisons were significant, and the study was designed to assess feasibility and acceptability rather than efficacy.