The proportion of minimally verbal children with autism spectrum disorder in a community-based early intervention programme.
Plan for one in four preschoolers with ASD to stay minimally verbal after early intervention—and be ready to add an extra 16-session language package to move them forward.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team counted how many preschoolers with autism left a community early-intervention program still minimally verbal.
They tracked the kids for one year. Minimal verbal meant fewer than 20 words or no word combos.
Different tests gave slightly different numbers, so the authors reported a range.
What they found
About 25 to 40 percent of the children exited the program with almost no spoken language.
A small group had actually lost words they once had.
The exact share depended on which test and cut-off the team used.
How this fits with other research
Schertz et al. (2016) pooled 38 studies and found early intervention does boost language, but the gain is small. That seems to clash with Vassos et al. (2016) showing a big minimally-verbal group. The gap is real: meta-analysis averages all kids, while the target paper zooms in on the tail who stay silent.
Abdi et al. (2023) gives hope. They ran a short 16-session mixed package and lifted vocabulary scores three-fold in the same minimally-verbal kids. The 2016 count tells you who needs more; the 2023 paper shows what to do next.
Mount et al. (2011) adds that about 24 percent of preschoolers with autism lose early words. Vassos et al. (2016) saw the same small regression slice, confirming regression is part of the minimally-verbal picture.
Why it matters
Expect roughly one in four of your preschoolers to leave early intervention still barely talking. Use that fact when you write long-term goals and ask for extra hours. Start an intensive language package like the one Abdi et al. (2023) used—16 play-based sessions pulled from ABA, JASPER, and speech routines—and you may see very large gains even after community services end.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Screen your caseload for kids with <20 words and slot them into an intensive clinician-plus-parent language block this week.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Estimates of the proportion of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who are minimally verbal vary from 25%to 35%. However, there is a lack of consensus in defining minimally verbal and few detailed reports of communication outcomes for these children following intervention. The aim of this study was to explore how minimally verbal children have been defined and to document the proportion of minimally verbal children in a group of children with ASD receiving a community based early intervention programme. METHOD: A longitudinal cohort design was used to examine the proportion of children who met criteria for minimally verbal in 246 children with ASD when they entered and exited an early intervention programme. RESULTS: Overall, 26.3% of the children in this study exited the programme using 'fewer than five spontaneous and functional words' and 36.4% exited not using 'two word phrases' as indicated by direct assessment. However, our findings were mixed depending on measures and definitions used, with parent report indicating that as many as 29.4% of children were not 'naming at least three objects' consistently, and 43.3% not using 'phrases with a noun and verb' consistently at exit. More than half of the children who entered the programme with minimal speech exited the programme with a similar language profile. A small percentage of children (1.2%-4.7%) regressed in their language level over time. CONCLUSIONS: Despite advances in early intervention, and access to services at a younger age, around a quarter of individuals with ASD in this study exited early intervention with significant communication needs. Our findings are considered in relation to the literature and clinical implications, and future research directions are discussed.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2016 · doi:10.1111/jir.12284