A Systematic Scoping Review of Interventions for Restricted and Repetitive Behaviours and Interests in Autistic Children and Young People: How Are Outcomes Defined and By Whom?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report on a systematic scoping review (SSR) of interventions for restricted and repetitive behaviours and interests (RRBIs) for autistic children and young people (CYP). To date, reviews of RRBI interventions synthesise evidence of effectiveness in reducing RRBIs but not whether and how this has benefitted CYP. We examined how outcomes are defined in this literature and by whom, focussing on CYP, parent/caregiver, and teacher views. We categorised studies that aimed to reduce RRBIs into those that based intervention on the specific negative impact of RRBIs for participants (group A) and those that based it on general negative impact of RRBIs reported in the literature (group B). The SSR included 592 studies. Only a quarter (n = 153, 27%) aimed to reduce RRBIs based on the specific needs of the participants and were included in group A. When the intended positive outcome of reducing RRBIs was related to functioning, such as learning or social interaction, less than half (n=66, 47%) in group A included a corresponding measure in the evaluation. Only a quarter of studies in group B (n = 99, 24%) included measures that evaluated outcomes associated with reducing RRBIs. The results are similar when limited to recent literature. Stakeholder views on RRBIs, when reported, were summarised in short statements of negative impact. We conclude that the needs of autistic CYP would be better met if intervention studies were consistently designed to evaluate whether and how reducing RRBIs is of benefit to them.
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 | 0.061 | 0.220 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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".