Sibling Relationship Profiles of Autistic Youths in a Social-Ecological Context.
Most caregivers see low sibling engagement, but those who report warmth also see better peer and family life.
01Research in Context
What this study did
de Jonge et al. (2025) asked 2,142 caregivers to describe how an autistic child gets along with a brother or sister.
The team used a stats tool called latent profile analysis. It sorts families into clear relationship types.
No one tried an intervention. The goal was to see what natural patterns exist and how they link to family life.
What they found
Caregivers fit into three groups: low engagement, moderate warmth, and high closeness.
Kids in the high-closeness group also had better peer play and calmer home routines.
The low-engagement pattern was the most common.
How this fits with other research
Stephens et al. (2018) saw the same families but added the sibling’s own view. Siblings rated the bond higher than moms or dads did. The new study keeps the parent lens and shows the size of each pattern across a huge sample.
Knott et al. (2007) watched small groups of autistic kids for a year. They saw social bids to siblings slowly rise. The 2025 work captures that same process in a snapshot, proving the climb ends in three main spots.
Glugatch et al. (2021) taught neurotypical siblings play skills and playtime jumped. Their results hint the low-engagement profile in E et al. may be moveable, even though the 2025 paper only describes, not changes.
Why it matters
You now have a quick way to place families into one of three buckets by asking caregivers a short set of questions. If you land in low engagement, consider sibling-mediated play training like Glugatch et al. used. Share the profile with parents so they see why boosting sibling interaction could lift both peer skills and household calm.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add the three-profile caregiver screener to your intake and flag low-engagement cases for sibling-mediated play modules.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify profiles of autistic youths' sibling relations and examined if social-ecological variables (i.e., youth characteristics, family and caregiver functioning, peer relations, academic performance) were associated with these profiles. METHOD: Caregivers (N = 2,142; 88.1% mothers) of autistic youths aged 6-17 years (M = 11.07 years; SD = 3.17; 80.1% male) completed electronic measures assessing social-ecological variables and youths' sibling relations. We used a latent profile analysis (LPA) to define sibling relation profiles based on the qualities (emotional support, companionship, conflict, and criticism) of relations between autistic youths and their closest-in-age siblings. We performed ANOVAs to compare sibling profiles on social-ecological variables. RESULTS: The LPA yielded a 3-profile solution: a positive group (18.2%), a negative group (17.2%), and a low engagement group (64.5%). ANOVAs and χ2 analyses revealed no between-group differences on age, gender, history of co-occurring cognitive impairment, or autism characteristics. Youths with positive sibling relations had more adaptive family and caregiver relations than did youths with low engagement sibling relations, who, in turn, had more adaptive family and caregiver relations than the youths with negative sibling relations. Youths with positive sibling relations had more friends and closeness with friends than did youths with low engagement or negative sibling relations. CONCLUSION: Most sibling relations among autistic youth fit a low engagement profile based on caregiver report. Positive sibling relations were linked with positive functioning in other social-ecological domains. The nature of these linkages warrants further investigation, particularly using longitudinal, multi-informant, and mixed-method designs.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2025 · doi:10.1080/1034912X.2022.2095361