Behavioural intervention practices for stereotypic and repetitive behaviour in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the quality of conduct of experimental studies contributing to our empirical understanding of function-based behavioural interventions for stereotypic and repetitive behaviours (SRBs) in individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). METHOD: Systematic review methodology was used to identify relevant articles, to rate the level of evidence and quality of conduct of the studies, and to extract data systematically. RESULTS: Ten single case studies examining 17 participants (14 males, 3 females; age 2y 11mo-26y) diagnosed with various ASDs were included. Overall, studies reported decreases in SRBs using behavioural interventions and some collateral increase in desirable behaviours. INTERPRETATION: Only a small number of intervention studies for SRBs explicitly state the function of the behaviour; therefore, relatively little is known about the efficacy of SRB interventions in relation to the range of possible behavioural functions. Evidence supporting SRB interventions is preliminary in nature, and caution should be used in choosing and implementing SRB intervention practices for individuals with ASDs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".