Communication intervention for children with autism: a review of treatment efficacy.

Goldstein (2002) read every paper she could find on teaching kids with autism to talk or sign. She grouped the studies by method: sign language, discrete trial training, milieu teaching, functional communication training, and social scripts. The review is narrative, so she tells the story of each method rather than crunch numbers.

All five methods showed some success. Kids picked up signs, used new words, or asked for toys more often. No method was labeled best; each had small studies showing gains.

Cui et al. (2023) is the 21-year update. It covers the same ground and adds newer tactics like speech-generating apps. The field has grown, but the core list of helpful methods still looks like Howard’s.

Mukherjee et al. (2021) looked at 84 reviews on AAC and found most were weak. They warn that narrative reviews like Howard’s can overstate confidence because they don’t grade evidence quality. Reading both side-by-side keeps you hopeful yet cautious.

Case-Smith et al. (2015) focused on sensory treatments. They found only clinic-based sensory integration had weak support, while many popular sensory hacks did not. This mirrors Howard’s point: some communication methods work, but not every classroom fad does.

Use Howard’s short list as your starter menu: sign, DTT, milieu, FCT, scripts. When a new app or gadget appears, check if later syntheses like Cui et al. (2023) or Mukherjee et al. (2021) have stronger data. Keep the method, upgrade the tool.