Assessment & Research

Evaluation of a parent preference-based outcome measure after intensive communication intervention for children with social (pragmatic) communication disorder and high-functioning autism spectrum disorder.

Adams et al. (2020) · Research in developmental disabilities 2020
★ The Verdict

Parent-set goal ladders catch communication gains that regular tests miss after SCIP.

✓ Read this if BCBAs running social-skills groups for elementary kids with HFASD or SPCD.
✗ Skip if Clinicians who only use standardized language tests as outcomes.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Twenty kids with high-functioning autism or social-pragmatic disorder got 20 SCIP sessions. Parents picked three communication goals they cared about most. Therapists turned each goal into a 5-step ladder. After therapy, parents rated how far their child moved up each ladder.

The team also gave two standard tests. One measured overall language. The other measured social thinking.

02

What they found

Nineteen of twenty parent-set goals showed big gains. Only two of the standard tests improved. Parents noticed change that the tests missed.

The SCIP-GAS score moved an average of 2.3 steps per goal. That is a large shift in goal-attainment terms.

03

How this fits with other research

Ouyang et al. (2024) looked at 32 parent-mediated studies. They found PRT, ESDM, and ImPACT all help kids grow. SCIP adds another parent-noticed win to that list.

Wuang et al. (2012) ran a similar pre-post study with 20 elementary kids. They used standard social-skills tests and also saw gains. Adams et al. (2020) shows parent-chosen goals catch progress that those tests can miss.

Nijs et al. (2016) built CAPES-DD, another parent scale. SCIP-GAS is narrower but more sensitive to communication change.

04

Why it matters

If you run social-communication groups, let parents pick the goals and score them with GAS. You will see change even when norm tests stay flat. One hour of setup per child can give you a clear parent-friendly outcome.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Turn one parent worry into a 5-step GAS ladder and rate it before and after your next four sessions.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
pre post no control
Sample size
20
Population
autism spectrum disorder, mixed clinical
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Children with Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder (SPCD) or High-Functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder (HFASD) have persistent deficits in language structure and language use (pragmatics). This feasibility study evaluated a novel parent preference-based outcome measure and secondary outcomes associated with the Social Communication Intervention Programme (SCIP). METHODS: 15 UK speech and language practitioners identified 20 children aged 5-11 years with pragmatics/language needs. Practitioners received SCIP training and supervision. Children received 20 SCIP therapy sessions. Primary endpoint was a goal attainment scale (SCIP-GAS). Before intervention (T1), parents provided three prioritised communication goals, refined into a series of steps. After intervention (T2) parents and practitioners rated each goal compared to T1 and parents provided a narrative on outcomes. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Children's Communication Checklist-2, Social Language Development Test (SLDT), and observational ratings of conversational interaction (TOPICC-2). RESULTS: All children except one progressed on T2 SCIP-GAS parent outcomes. All children progressed on practitioner SCIP-GAS ratings. 82.5 % of parent comments supported their own SCIP-GAS ratings. Secondary outcomes measures: Only SLDT Making Inferences scores and TOPICC-2 ratings showed improvement at T2. CONCLUSIONS: A preference-based social communication measure showed feasibility as an outcome measure following social communication intervention for children who have HFASD or SPCD.

Research in developmental disabilities, 2020 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103752