Cross‐site randomized control trial of the <i>Social ABCs</i> caregiver‐mediated intervention for toddlers with autism spectrum disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the efficacy of the Social ABCs parent‐mediated intervention for toddlers with suspected or confirmed autism spectrum disorder (ASD), through a cross‐site randomized control trial, sixty‐three parent–toddler dyads (toddler age: 16–30 months) were randomized into treatment ( Social ABCs ) or control (service‐as‐usual) conditions. Video data were obtained at three key time‐points: Baseline; Post‐training (PT; week 12); and Follow‐Up (week 24). Analyses included 62 dyads. Treatment allocation significantly accounted for PT gains, all favouring the Treatment group, in (1) child functional vocal responsiveness to parent prompts ( R 2 = 0.43, P < .001), (2) child vocal initiations ( R 2 = 0.28, P < .001), (3) parent smiling ( R 2 = 0.09, P = .017), and (4) fidelity of implementation ( R 2 = 0.71, P < .001). A trend was observed for increased social orienting ( R 2 = 0.06, P = 0.054); gains in parent smiling significantly predicted increases in child smiling and social orienting. Parents in the treatment condition reported significant gains in self‐efficacy following the intervention ( P = 0.009). No differential effects emerged for performance on standardized measures. The Social ABCs is a relatively low‐resource, efficacious intervention, with potential to be a cost‐effective means of intervening at the first signs of possible ASD. Autism Res 2017, 10: 1700–1711 . © 2017 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Clinical Trial Title: Social ABCs for Toddlers with Signs of Autism Spectrum Disorder: RCT of a Parent‐Mediated Intervention http//ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02428452.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".