Outcome studies of autistic adults: Quantifying effect size, Quality, and Meta-regression

David Mason; Simone Capp; Gavin Stewart; Matthew Kempton; Karen Glaser; Patricia Howlin; Francesca Happe

Outcome studies of autistic adults: Quantifying effect size, Quality, and Meta-regression

David Mason, Simone Capp, Gavin Stewart, Matthew Kempton, Karen Glaser, Patricia Howlin, Francesca Happe

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

89 Downloads (Pure)

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 4,088 records was screened and 18 studies, involving 1,199 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 language	English
Journal	Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
Publication status	Published - 17 Nov 2020

Access to Document

20201109_Mason_et_al_ManuscriptAccepted author manuscript, 230 KB

Cite this

@article{5539890523494a1db8ad59647421e44c,

title = "Outcome studies of autistic adults: Quantifying effect size, Quality, and Meta-regression",

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 4,088 records was screened and 18 studies, involving 1,199 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.",

author = "David Mason and Simone Capp and Gavin Stewart and Matthew Kempton and Karen Glaser and Patricia Howlin and Francesca Happe",

year = "2020",

month = nov,

day = "17",

language = "English",

journal = "Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders",

issn = "0162-3257",

publisher = "Springer",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Outcome studies of autistic adults: Quantifying effect size, Quality, and Meta-regression

AU - Mason, David

AU - Capp, Simone

AU - Stewart, Gavin

AU - Kempton, Matthew

AU - Glaser, Karen

AU - Howlin, Patricia

AU - Happe, Francesca

PY - 2020/11/17

Y1 - 2020/11/17

N2 - 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 4,088 records was screened and 18 studies, involving 1,199 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.

AB - 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 4,088 records was screened and 18 studies, involving 1,199 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.

M3 - Article

SN - 0162-3257

JO - Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

JF - Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

ER -

Outcome studies of autistic adults: Quantifying effect size, Quality, and Meta-regression

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this