A Pilot Study Comparing Tele-therapy and In-Person Therapy: Perspectives from Parent-Mediated Intervention for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders.

Hao et al. (2021) compared two ways to coach parents of children with autism. One group got live, in-person coaching. The other group got the same coaching through a computer screen.

Parents learned simple language-building tricks like waiting for the child to speak, then adding one new word. The team watched how well parents used the tricks and how the children's language grew.

Both groups of parents reached the same high level of skill. Their children also gained the same new words and longer sentences.

Screen coaching worked just as well as sitting at the same table.

Simacek et al. (2020) looked at 22 telehealth studies and say the field is growing fast. Ying’s finding fits right into that picture.

Ingersoll et al. (2016) already showed that therapist-led video coaching beats self-paced web modules. Ying goes one step further: live video equals live in-person.

But Yi et al. (2021) saw low fidelity when public early-intervention staff used telehealth. The clash is about setting, not the tool. Ying worked in a small lab with extra support; Yi watched real-world visits with less backup.

You can swap some home visits for Zoom without losing quality. Start with one case on your caseload that has good internet and a quiet room. Track parent fidelity for two weeks—if it holds, you have green light to mix telehealth into the treatment plan.