Brief report: characteristics of methods of subject selection and description in research on autism.
Autism research still repeats the same 1986 mistake—vague participant descriptions—so demand those four basics before you trust or replicate any study.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Delamater et al. (1986) read every autism paper published between 1971 and 1982. They checked how researchers picked and described their participants.
They looked for clear diagnosis, age, IQ, and sex. If the paper left these out, they flagged it.
What they found
Most studies did not say how they decided a child had autism. Many gave no IQ, age, or sex data.
Without these basics, later scientists could not repeat the study or know if results applied to their own clients.
How this fits with other research
Tromans et al. (2018) scanned 529 newer autism trials and found the same flaw: most still run on tiny, poorly described groups. The problem J spotted has lasted 30 years.
Shaked et al. (2004) echoed the warning. Their meta-analysis showed that when age, IQ, and sex are not matched across groups, outcomes get muddled.
Jonsson et al. (2016) focused on social-skills RCTs and again found missing details on who the children were. The 1986 alarm keeps ringing because later papers still skip the homework J asked for.
Why it matters
When you read an autism intervention study, flip to the Methods table first. If you cannot see clear diagnosis criteria, age, IQ, and sex, treat the findings as a maybe, not a map. Push your team to list these four variables in every single-subject report you write. Clear descriptions let the next BCBA replicate your work and know which kids the program fits.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a standard table to your next report: diagnosis tool, age, IQ, sex—fill every box before you graph one data point.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Characteristics of autism research were examined in this survey of a subset of studies published between 1971 and 1982. Results indicated that replicability of research, and appropriate generalization of findings, are likely to be impaired because of inadequacies of subject selection procedures and omission of important descriptive information. Although there were improvements in these areas over this 12-year span, increased use of objective, quantitative measures of diagnosis of autism and assessment of intellectual abilities of autistic subjects are needed.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 1986 · doi:10.1007/BF01531580