Sibling involvement in interventions for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: a systematic review.

Perez et al. (2015) read every paper they could find about brothers and sisters joining autism interventions.

They sorted the studies by type of sibling role: teacher, play partner, or peer model.

The team did not pool results; they simply mapped what exists and noted where data were missing.

The review shows wide variety. Some programs train siblings to teach language. Others ask siblings to play or to prompt sharing.

No two studies use the same steps, so clinicians have no clear manual to follow.

The authors warn that we still do not know which approach helps most or harms least.

Glugatch et al. (2021) and Neff et al. (2017) fill the gap the review spotted. Both teams wrote brief, step-by-step play scripts and tested them at home. Siblings quickly learned the steps and the autistic child played more in return.

Sutton et al. (2022) widens the lens. Their newer review looks at all neurodevelopmental disorders, not only autism. It keeps the 2015 catalog inside its bigger picture and adds fresh papers on social-support needs.

Hastings (2003) seems to clash. That early paper says siblings stay well-adjusted during home ABA, so extra help is optional. The 2015 review, however, says we lack proof that sibling involvement is safe. The gap is method: P measured adjustment after ABA was already running, while M et al. asked what happens when we actively pull siblings into treatment. Both can be true—kids cope fine with ABA in the house, yet we still need rules before we ask them to be co-therapists.

You now have a menu, not a recipe. If you want siblings to help, borrow the short play scripts from Glugatch or Neff instead of inventing your own. Start small, track data, and watch for stress. Until clearer standards arrive, purposeful choice beats good intentions.