The Influence of Language and Cognition on Intervention Effects in Young Autistic Children: A Meta-Regression Analysis.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	The Influence of Language and Cognition on Intervention Effects in Young Autistic Children: A Meta-Regression Analysis.
Authors:	Sandbank, Micheal¹ micheal_sandbank@med.unc.edu, Bottema-Beutel, Kristen², LaPoint, Shannon Crowley³, Feldman, Jacob I.⁴, Woynaroskie, Tiffany^5,6,7,8,9,10
Source:	Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research. May2026, Vol. 69 Issue 5, p2112-2127. 16p.
Subject Terms:	Language & languages, Psychological adaptation, Communication, Child development, Asperger's syndrome, Cognition, *Children, Treatment of autism, Research funding, Secondary analysis, Treatment effectiveness, Age distribution, Social skills, Regression analysis
Abstract:	Background: Young autistic children have a range of language and cognitive abilities and, as a result, may differentially benefit from interventions supporting skills in these and related domains. Although studies have previously examined the extent to which participant characteristics interact with intervention effects, they have primarily restricted the analyses to a single intervention approach. Method: In the present study, we drew on data from a comprehensive metaanalysis of group design, nonpharmacological intervention studies for young autistic children to test these effects. Specifically, we conducted a secondary meta-regression analysis to examine whether cognitive and language standard scores and age equivalents at study entry significantly moderated intervention effects across intervention type on adaptive, cognitive, language, and social communication outcomes and separately across outcome type for behavioral, developmental, naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions and technologybased interventions. Cognitive and language ability was quantified using reported or estimated standard scores, and cognitive and language level was quantified using reported or estimated age-equivalent scores. Analyses within outcome type were conducted using a data set of 1,911 effect sizes from 202 independent samples, and analyses within intervention type were conducted using a data set of 2,137 effect sizes from 144 independent samples. Results: Few studies reported standard scores and/or age equivalents for participant language. None of the putative moderators significantly predicted intervention effects by outcome domain (i.e., adaptive, cognitive, language, and social communication). Both cognitive standard and age-equivalent scores positively and significantly predicted effects of technology-based interventions exclusively, but we did not find robust evidence that language standard or age-equivalent scores significantly predicted effects by intervention type. Conclusions: These findings are exploratory and warrant cautious interpretation. Future intervention researchers should extensively characterize participant samples in terms of their language and cognitive ability to aid meta-analytic investigation. The field would benefit from additional high-quality randomized controlled trials testing whether intervention effects vary by participant characteristics, using preplanned moderator analyses, valid measures, and large representative samples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Education Research Complete

Description
Abstract:	Background: Young autistic children have a range of language and cognitive abilities and, as a result, may differentially benefit from interventions supporting skills in these and related domains. Although studies have previously examined the extent to which participant characteristics interact with intervention effects, they have primarily restricted the analyses to a single intervention approach. Method: In the present study, we drew on data from a comprehensive metaanalysis of group design, nonpharmacological intervention studies for young autistic children to test these effects. Specifically, we conducted a secondary meta-regression analysis to examine whether cognitive and language standard scores and age equivalents at study entry significantly moderated intervention effects across intervention type on adaptive, cognitive, language, and social communication outcomes and separately across outcome type for behavioral, developmental, naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions and technologybased interventions. Cognitive and language ability was quantified using reported or estimated standard scores, and cognitive and language level was quantified using reported or estimated age-equivalent scores. Analyses within outcome type were conducted using a data set of 1,911 effect sizes from 202 independent samples, and analyses within intervention type were conducted using a data set of 2,137 effect sizes from 144 independent samples. Results: Few studies reported standard scores and/or age equivalents for participant language. None of the putative moderators significantly predicted intervention effects by outcome domain (i.e., adaptive, cognitive, language, and social communication). Both cognitive standard and age-equivalent scores positively and significantly predicted effects of technology-based interventions exclusively, but we did not find robust evidence that language standard or age-equivalent scores significantly predicted effects by intervention type. Conclusions: These findings are exploratory and warrant cautious interpretation. Future intervention researchers should extensively characterize participant samples in terms of their language and cognitive ability to aid meta-analytic investigation. The field would benefit from additional high-quality randomized controlled trials testing whether intervention effects vary by participant characteristics, using preplanned moderator analyses, valid measures, and large representative samples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	10924388
DOI:	10.1044/2026_JSLHR-24-00391