A Meta-analysis of Outcome Studies of Autistic Adults: Quantifying Effect Size, Quality, and Meta-regression

David Mason*, Simone J. Capp, Gavin R. Stewart, Matthew J. Kempton, Karen Glaser, Patricia Howlin, Francesca Happé

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

45 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Longitudinal studies have generally reported poor outcomes in adulthood for the majority of individuals (c.50–60%) with autism. Several factors putatively predict outcome (e.g. IQ), but findings remain mixed. This paper presents an updated meta-analysis of autism outcome studies and extends previous findings with additional analyses (including meta-regression). A total of 4088 records was screened and 18 studies, involving 1199 individuals, were included in the quantitative analysis. Estimated percentages indicated that 20.0% of participants were rated as having a good outcome, 26.6% a fair outcome, and 49.3% a poor outcome. Meta-regression indicated that lower IQ in adulthood was predictive of poor outcome; other meta-regression models did not survive correction for multiple comparisons. Overall, outcomes for autistic people are on average poor, and higher IQ appears to be protective against having a poor outcome. The limitations of current constructs of outcome are discussed.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 2020

Keywords

  • Autism spectrum disorder
  • Functioning
  • Meta-analysis
  • Outcome

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A Meta-analysis of Outcome Studies of Autistic Adults: Quantifying Effect Size, Quality, and Meta-regression'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this