Exploring possible predictors and moderators of an executive function training for children with an autism spectrum disorder.
EF computer games give tiny wins only to autistic kids with light traits and big prize love.
01Research in Context
What this study did
de Vries et al. (2018) ran a computer game study with autistic kids. Half played games that got harder as they improved. The other half played the same games at one easy level.
The team wanted to know who gains the most from these brain-training games. They looked at autism traits and how much each child likes rewards.
What they found
Kids who started with fewer autism traits and who loved prizes made small gains. Kids with lots of traits or low prize interest gained almost nothing.
Overall, the training helped only a little, and only for some children.
How this fits with other research
Fisher et al. (2005) tried a similar game plan years earlier and saw zero EF gains. Marieke’s small lift looks better than that null, but both show the training is weak tea.
Rieth et al. (2022) used the same games and found a new rule: only kids with ADHD traits got better at stopping themselves. This flips Marieke’s rule, but the studies tested different skills, so both can be true.
García-Villamisar et al. (2017) gave adults with autism and ID the same games inside a 40-week camp. They saw bigger life-skills gains. Longer time and real-life practice may be the missing pieces.
Why it matters
Before you buy an EF software license, screen your client. If the child has many autism traits, low reward interest, or no ADHD traits, the games will likely waste seat time. Swap the computer slot for real-life EF drills like cooking, chores, or stop-and-go games with prizes the child actually wants.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run the BRIEF reward-interest items; if scores are low, pick a different intervention.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Previously, a total of 121 children with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) performed an adaptive working memory (WM)-training, an adaptive flexibility-training, or a non-adaptive control (mock)-training. Despite overall improvement, there were minor differences between the adaptive and mock-training conditions. Moreover, dropout was relatively high (26%). In the current study we explored potential predicting and moderating factors to clarify these findings. The effects of intelligence, autism traits, WM, flexibility, reward sensitivity and Theory of Mind on dropout, improvement during training, and improvement in everyday executive functioning (EF), ASD-like behavior, and Quality of Life (QoL) were studied. None of the predictors influenced dropout or training improvement. However, 1) more pre-training autism traits related to less improvement in EF and QoL, and 2) higher reward sensitivity was related to more improvement in QoL and ASD-like behavior. These findings suggest that these EF-training procedures may be beneficial for children with fewer autism traits and higher reward sensitivity. However, the exploratory nature of the analyses warrant further research before applying the findings clinically.
Autism : the international journal of research and practice, 2018 · doi:10.1177/1362361316682622