Autism Treatment in the First Year of Life: A Pilot Study of Infant Start, a Parent-Implemented Intervention for Symptomatic Infants

Abstract

The goal of early autism screening is earlier treatment. We pilot-tested a 12-week, low-intensity treatment with seven symptomatic infants ages 7-15 months. Parents mastered the intervention and maintained skills after treatment ended. Four comparison groups were matched from a study of infant siblings. The treated group of infants was significantly more symptomatic than most of the comparison groups at 9 months of age but was significantly less symptomatic than the two most affected groups between 18 and 36 months. At 36 months, the treated group had much lower rates of both ASD and DQs under 70 than a similarly symptomatic group who did not enroll in the treatment study. It appears feasible to identify and enroll symptomatic infants in parent-implemented intervention before 12 months, and the pilot study outcomes are promising, but testing the treatment's efficacy awaits a randomized trial.

Full text

ORIGINAL PAPER
Autism Treatment in the First Year of Life: A Pilot Study
of Infant Start, a Parent-Implemented Intervention
for Symptomatic Infants
S. J. Rogers •L. Vismara •A. L. Wagner •
C. McCormick •G. Young •S. Ozonoff
ÓSpringer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract The goal of early autism screening is earlier
treatment. We pilot-tested a 12-week, low-intensity treat-
ment with seven symptomatic infants ages 7–15 months.
Parents mastered the intervention and maintained skills
after treatment ended. Four comparison groups were mat-
ched from a study of infant siblings. The treated group of
infants was significantly more symptomatic than most of
the comparison groups at 9 months of age but was signif-
icantly less symptomatic than the two most affected groups
between 18 and 36 months. At 36 months, the treated
group had much lower rates of both ASD and DQs under
70 than a similarly symptomatic group who did not enroll
in the treatment study. It appears feasible to identify and
enroll symptomatic infants in parent-implemented inter-
vention before 12 months, and the pilot study outcomes are
promising, but testing the treatment’s efficacy awaits a
randomized trial.
Keywords ASD Infants Early intervention Parents 
Early Start Denver Model
Introduction
One of the most exciting areas of current autism science
involves the search for infant behavioral markers of incipient
autism. A number of prospective studies of infant siblings of
children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have been
carried out to help identify behavioral markers that are sen-
sitive and specific to ASD in infancy. Some differences
associated with risk status have been identified in infants as
young as 5–6 months by examining group differences
between infants with a sibling with autism and those with
typically developing siblings (Ference and Curtin 2013;
Lloyd-Fox et al. 2013). However, these studies have not yet
demonstrated that such symptoms are associated with the
development of ASD. Other studies have followed high-risk
and low-risk groups from infancy to diagnosis at age 3 and
then examined the longitudinal trajectories to find earliest
evidence of differences associated with diagnosis. Using this
design, several groups have demonstrated that the develop-
ment of infants later diagnosed with autism begins to diverge
from a typical trajectory between 6 and 12 months of age
(Landa et al. 2012; Ozonoff et al. 2010), with no group dif-
ferences evident, as a group, at 6 months, but differences
already marked and statistically significant by 12 months.
Differences in rate of development have been documented
across multiple domains, including motor, social, commu-
nication, and cognitive. In the approximately 25 % of infants
with older siblings with ASD who do not develop ASD
themselves, but display other atypicalities in development
(Messinger et al. 2013), the inflection point at which their
development begins to diverge from typical infants is simi-
lar, during the 6–12 month period (Ozonoff et al. 2014).
Infant sibling studies have also identified behavioral markers
associated with later ASD diagnosis as early as
10–12 months of age (Zwaigenbaum et al. 2005; Ozonoff
S. J. Rogers (&)C. McCormick G. Young S. Ozonoff
MIND Institute, University of California, Davis, Sacramento,
CA, USA
e-mail: sally.rogers@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu
L. Vismara
York University, Toronto, ON, Canada
A. L. Wagner
University of California, Davis, CA, USA
123
J Autism Dev Disord
DOI 10.1007/s10803-014-2202-y

et al. 2008; Landa et al. 2012; Sacrey et al. 2013; Wan et al.
2013). Collectively, these studies suggest that it will be
especially fruitful to identify predictive markers in the
6–9 month period, before the marked developmental delays
and autism behavior patterns already detectable at
12 months take hold. While many infants who will later
develop autism do not show symptoms in the 6–9 month
period (Zwaigenbaum et al. 2005), case studies have shown
that a significant subgroup does (Bryson et al. 2007). The
symptoms detectable in the 6–12 month period involve six
specific risk indices: (1) unusual visual examination and
fixations; (2) unusual repetitive patterns of object explora-
tion; (3) lack of intentional communicative acts; (4) lack of
age-appropriate phonemic development; (5) lack of coordi-
nated gaze, affect, and voice in reciprocal social-communi-
cative interactions; and (6) decreased eye contact, social
interest, and engagement. For this subgroup of early onset
children, Bryson et al. (2007) report that the course of onset
appears more rapid, and the degree of delay and atypicality
more severe, than those infants whose onset occurs later.
Thus, infants with symptoms before 12 months may be a
particularly high-risk group.
The primary purpose of early detection of ASD is to
prevent or mitigate the full onset of autism and its associated
severe disabilities through early referral to effective treat-
ment. Early detection science requires that early treatment
science develop in parallel so that tested treatments are ready
for identified infants. Well-structured, long-term early
intervention is currently the most effective intervention for
decreasing the level of disability associated with ASD
(Lovaas 1987; McEachin et al. 1993; Dawson et al. 2010;
Rogers and Vismara 2014). This evidence, however,
involves children who are mostly 2 years and older. For
younger infants, there are only two pilot intervention studies
in the literature. The first is a case series focused on
increasing parental responsivity in a sample of parent-infant
sibling dyads for infants selected by sibling status rather than
by symptoms (Green et al. 2013). The second (Steiner et al.
2013) reports a single subject design using Pivotal Response
Training for three infants under the age of 1 year, resulting in
an increase in specific social-communication behaviors. We
currently lack methodologically rigorous, efficacious inter-
vention studies for ASD-symptomatic infants.
In contrast, such high quality studies have been carried
out with infants with other kinds of developmental delays,
and these studies report several practices that appear to
improve outcomes and can provide a starting point for
designing effective interventions for infants with autism
symptoms. Wallace and Rogers (2010) identified five
central ingredients in efficacious interventions for infants.
One practice involves parent coaching, including parent
use of the interventions daily at home and therapist mod-
eling of the intervention to the parent. Sanz and Menendez
(1996) and Sanz-Aparicio and Balan
˜a(2003) experimen-
tally demonstrated the superiority of such methods over the
use of written materials with parents of infants with Down
Syndrome. There is robust evidence that parents can
effectively deliver interventions for children with autism
and effect desired child changes (Koegel et al. 1978; Harris
et al. 1981; Short 1984; Laski et al. 1988; Koegel et al.
1996; Schreibman and Koegel 1997; Charlop-Christy and
Carpenter 2000; Diggle et al. 2002).
A second practice identified by Wallace and Rogers
(2010) involves the frequency and length of the interven-
tion. The majority of the effective studies involved weekly
sessions in the clinic or at home across the entire
6–11 month age range. In contrast, many ineffective
interventions in the literature were short-term, consisting of
few or widely-spaced contacts.
Third, most of the effective interventions involved
individualized activities designed to meet the develop-
mental needs of each child. Parental use of specific
developmental activities was a major component of a
number of efficacious infant interventions (Sanz and Me-
nendez 1996; Sanz-Aparicio and Balan
˜a2002,2003; Slo-
per et al. 1986, with Down Syndrome; Ross 1984, with
very premature infants). Many were based upon a manu-
alized curriculum that allowed for individualization of the
parent activities and adjustments based on child progress
(Resnick et al. 1988; Sanz-Aparicio and Balan
˜a2002).
A fourth practice involved beginning the interventions
as early as possible. Outcomes from these early delivered
interventions were strong and long-lasting (Brooks-Gunn
et al. 1992). Sanz-Aparicio and Balan
˜a(2002) experi-
mentally demonstrated the benefit of earlier intervention
for infants with Down syndrome involving greater gains in
motor, verbal, social adaptation, and social relationships.
Fifth, several studies demonstrated the positive effects of
increasing parental sensitivity and responsivity to infant
cues (Barrera et al. 1990; Seifer et al. 1991). Such parenting
practices also have positive impact on the development of
typical infants and toddlers. The impacts are particularly
seen in child language and social development (Tomasello
1992; Tamis-LeMonda and Bornstein 1994; Chapman 2000;
Pan et al. 2005; Simpson et al. 2007). These five intervention
practices, and the efficacious practices of the Early Start
Denver Model (ESDM; Dawson et al. 2010; Rogers et al.
2012a,b) provided the basis for designing an intervention
approach for infants who were at high risk for ASD.
Methods
The study’s overall goals were to develop, pilot test, and
examine the feasibility of a manualized, parent-delivered
intervention for infants age 6–15 months of age who were
J Autism Dev Disord
123

highly symptomatic for ASD, many of whom were also at
familial risk for autism. The intervention aimed to reduce
or alter six target symptoms and developmental patterns of
early ASD. Feasibility of identifying such infants and
enrolling them in treatment was an important second
question.
Hypotheses
1. Infants with high numbers of autism symptoms and
developmental delays under 15 months of age can be
identified and enrolled in a treatment program.
2. Parents will learn and deliver the intervention at high
levels of fidelity during the treatment phase and
maintain it after treatment ends.
3. Parents will report high levels of satisfaction with the
study intervention and positive working alliances with
their therapist.
4. The group of infants who receive the study interven-
tion will demonstrate fewer symptoms of ASD at 24
and 36 months compared to two matched comparison
groups of infants: (1) a group of infants with similar
behavioral profiles at 9 months who later developed
ASD, and (2) a group of infants who met all treatment
study eligibility criteria and were referred to the study
intervention but declined to enroll.
5. The group of infants who receive the study interven-
tion will demonstrate faster developmental progress
and less developmental delays, reflected in higher
developmental quotients, at 24 and 36 months com-
pared to both of the above described comparison
groups.
Participants
Recruitment
The infant start treatment group (IS) consisted of seven
infants who were either (1) identified through their par-
ticipation in a prospective study of younger siblings of
children with ASD (n =4; Infant Sibling Project) or (2)
were referred from the community by parents or other
clinicians due to early symptoms (n =3). At the beginning
of treatment, the infants ranged from 6–15 months of age.
Eligibility Criteria
There were seven inclusion criteria for enrollment: (1)
Scores on the Autism Observation Scale for Infants (AOSI)
of 7 or higher at initial assessment and at re-assessment
2 weeks later; (2) Presence of two or more target symp-
toms defined by ratings of 2 or higher on related AOSI
items at initial assessment and at re-assessment in the clinic
2 weeks later; (3) Scores on the Infant-Toddler Checklist in
the risk range (ITC; Wetherby and Prizant 2002); (4)
Concerns based on expert clinical judgment involving
direct, independent observations of Dr. Rogers and Dr.
Ozonoff; (5) English as one language spoken in the home;
(6) Hearing and vision screen within the normal range; (7)
Residence within 1 h of the MIND Institute; and (8) Infant
age of 15 months or younger at time of identification.
Exclusion criteria involved the presence of a genetic
disorder related to ASD, like Fragile 9Syndrome, signif-
icant abnormalities in the pre-, peri- and postnatal period,
significant chronic illness, gestational age younger than
36 weeks, vision and hearing impairments, and severe
motor impairments. See Table 1for a description of the
gender, ethnicity, age, referral source, and family socio-
economic status for each of the IS infants.
Comparison groups for the treatment group were con-
structed by sampling from the entire Infant Sibling project
cohort (n =126). We constructed three different compari-
son groups that were matched to the treatment group: (1)
high-risk (HR) children who were younger siblings of a child
diagnosed with ASD but who did not themselves develop
ASD; (2) low-risk (LR) children who were younger siblings
of a child with no developmental disorders; and (3) autism
outcome (AO) children who were younger siblings diag-
nosed with ASD by their 36-month visit. Each child in these
three comparison groups was directly matched to one of the
seven treatment group infants based on AOSI total score,
Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL; Mullen 1995) early
learning composite at 9 months, and gender. The procedure
involved algorithms that repeatedly selected the top five
matches for each individual treatment group infant from the
total group of infants for each comparison group. This
function was run 100 times, with every potential match
receiving a score after every iteration. The seven participants
with the highest total score in each comparison group were
selected as the matched cases.
A fourth comparison group was also constructed. The
declined referral (DR) group consisted of four children who
were identified as potentially eligible for the infant start
treatment due to elevated AOSI scores and clinician con-
cerns, but whose family chose not to enroll in the study.
See Table 2for a description of the five groups.
Enrollment Procedure
All IS-referred infants were first screened via telephone
interview with a parent to determine inclusion criteria. The
Infant Toddler Checklist (ITC; Wetherby and Prizant 2002)
was conducted to verify the presence of autism symptoms.
For infants who received scores in the ITC defined risk
range (ITC social composite score 12th percentile), an
J Autism Dev Disord
123

assessment visit was scheduled, and the ITC was re-
administered.
As can be seen in Fig. 1, ten children were recruited
from the Infant Sibling Study; six consented to further
screening, of whom four met qualifications and were
enrolled. Four families did not respond to the referral and
did not enroll their children (these are the children who
became the DR group). Fourteen children were referred by
Table 1 Descriptions of the ethnicity and household income of the five groups
Infant start Declined referral Autism outcome Low risk High risk
N=7N=4N=7N=7N=7
N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)
Gender
Male 5 (71.4) 2 (50) 4 (57.1) 5 (71.4) 5 (71.4)
Female 2 (28.6) 2 (50) 3 (42.9) 2 (28.6) 2 (28.6)
Ethnicity
Hispanic 2 (28.6) 0 (0) 1 (14.3) 1 (14.3) 3 (42.9)
Non-Hispanic 6 (71.4) 4 (100) 6 (85.7) 6 (85.7) 4 (57.1)
Household income
Under $25k 0 (0) 2 (50) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (14.3)
$25k–$49k 1 (14.3) 0 (0) 2 (28.6) 0 (0) 0 (0)
$50k–$74k 1 (14.3) 2 (50) 1 (14.3) 2 (28.6) 1 (14.3)
$75k–$99k 4 (57.1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (28.6) 1 (14.3)
$100k–$124k 1 (14.3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (28.6) 3 (42.9)
$125k and above 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (28.6) 1 (14.3) 1 (14.3)
Table 2 Means and standard deviations of child outcome measures
Variable Age IS DR AO HR LR
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
AOSI markers 9 7.71 (3.73) 5.75 (2.87) 4.14 (1.46) 4.71 (1.89) 5.00 (1.92)
12 6.00 (2.94) 6.75 (2.87) 4.71 (3.09) 4.86 (2.48) 3.00 (2.10)
15 6.43 (2.94) 4.25 (3.30) 6.57 (3.55) 4.00 (0.89) 2.86 (1.46)
AOSI total 9 12.57 (6.83) 7.75 (4.35) 5.71 (1.70) 6.14 (2.73) 7.43 (3.10)
12 10.86 (6.64) 11.00 (6.33) 7.86 (5.58) 6.71 (3.40) 4.00 (2.37)
15 11.00 (6.06) 7.75 (6.60) 10.86 (6.59) 5.00 (1.10) 3.57 (2.15)
ADOS severity 18 4.43 (2.44) 6.00 (2.71) 5.42 (2.92) 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00)
24 3.34 (3.41) 6.25 (3.86) 6.71 (0.95) 1.50 (1.23) 1.00 (0.00)
36 3.34 (2.30) 5.25 (3.40) 7.71 (1.60) 1.71 (0.76) 1.43 (0.54)
VRDQ 9 102.14 (25.60) 97.63 (19.81) 115.17 (18.03) 110.97 (20.79) 94.53 (9.26)
12 106.87 (22.03) 93.98 (26.59) 103.40 (9.52) 110.67 (10.96) 111.37 (15.31)
15 95.29 (9.60) 91.47 (9.57) 93.27 (8.52) 97.34 (10.73) 103.00 (8.11)
18 95.31 (14.05) 77.19 (23.69) 84.20 (8.22) 93.84 (11.16) 97.83 (16.19)
24 96.07 (16.44) 78.65 (9.28) 78.38 (10.78) 96.93 (13.17) 112.45 (21.31)
36 102.06 (29.44) 60.39 (21.76) 78.76 (27.17) 115.22 (17.19) 126.56 (21.32)
LDQ 9 58.97 (5.62) 79.53 (17.38) 68.73 (10.13) 80.45 (11.64) 80.50 (13.78)
12 64.42 (15.13) 67.59 (26.03) 68.01 (19.62) 88.60 (18.96) 92.38 (16.00)
15 59.00 (10.85) 67.59 (20.82) 66.43 (13.17) 89.78 (16.48) 93.19 (6.83)
18 74.02 (29.86) 55.0 (17.35) 65.14 (16.30) 90.22 (20.53) 89.02 (39.39)
24 92.42 (29.46) 45.62 (20.25) 59.00 (12.54) 95.45 (22.67) 103.93 (10.20)
36 90.75 (26.89) 57.41 (19.77) 71.41 (19.63) 95.06 (4.96) 107.61 (9.46)
Total intervention hours 1,048.93 (1,100.26) 1,383.50 (1,473.34) 901.00 (580.01) 16.63 (40.72) 0 (0.00)
IS infant start group, DR declined referral group, AO autism outcome group, HR high risk group, LR low risk group, VRDQ visual reception
developmental quotient; LDQ language developmental quotient
J Autism Dev Disord
123

families in the community. Three of these referrals met
enrollment criteria and participated.
Measures
Parent Measures
Infant Start Parent Fidelity Measure (Rogers et al.
2012c) This measure was a therapist rating of parent use
of treatment techniques collected during each treatment and
follow-up session. Parents were rated across a 3-point Likert
scale on the targeted skills described in Table 3. Scores across
19 individual items were averaged to create a total score.
Parent Satisfaction Rating (Charlop-Christy and Carpen-
ter 2000)This is a measure of social validity, or
acceptability, of the experimental treatment, to parents.
Parents of children were asked to fill out this questionnaire
at the end of the 12-week intervention program during the
final intervention session to rate the ease of implementation
in the home and their opinions concerning treatment utility.
Working Alliance Scale for Interventions with Children
(Davis et al. 2006)This measure was created as an
adaptation of an existing working alliance scale. This
psychometrically strong measure was administered at the
end of the 12-week program to describe the response of the
families to the experimental intervention, and thus consti-
tutes another measure of social validity.
Infant Enrollment Measures
Infant Toddler Checklist (ITC; Wetherby and Prizant
2002)The ITC is a parent questionnaire developed to
determine risk for communication disorders which also has
an algorithm validated to identify possible ASD. Screening
cutoffs and standard scores are available at monthly
intervals from 6 to 24 months based on a normative sample
of over 2,188 children.
Autism Observation Scale for Infants (AOSI; Bryson et al.
2008)The AOSI is an assessment of autism symptoms in
infants. It was administered at two time points, spaced
2 weeks apart, as part of the inclusion criteria for the study.
The measure was also given at 6, 9, 12, and 15 months of age.
Two variables were used from this measure: the total score
(number of symptoms and severity of each) and the number of
markers (number of symptoms shown regardless of severity).
Infant Treatment Curriculum Measures
The Carolina Curriculum for Infants and Toddlers with
Special Needs, 2nd Edition (Johnson-Martin et al.
Fig. 1 Flow chart of subject
identification, screening, and
enrollment
Fig. 2 Individual parent fidelity- of- treatment implementation scores
from baseline through maintenance
J Autism Dev Disord
123

1991)This tool provides curriculum items that assess all
aspects of early development arranged hierarchically
across the 0–36 month period. It was administered to
children at the start of their intervention. It was used to
construct individualized treatment objectives. This curric-
ulum has strong psychometric data, including data on
reliability, validity, and program efficacy.
ESDM Curriculum Checklist (Rogers and Dawson
2010)This tool provides a very detailed list of items for
ASD-specific social and preverbal communication devel-
opment arranged hierarchically across the 8–48 month
period. It was administered to children at the start of
intervention and was used to construct individualized
treatment objectives.
Infant Outcome Measures
Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS; Lord
et al. 2000)This is a structured 40-min observational
assessment that provides a number of opportunities for
interaction (e.g., play, turn-taking games, looking at books,
etc.) and measures social and communicative behaviors
used in the diagnosis of autism. Each item is scored from 0
(typical for age or not autistic in quality) to 3
(unquestionably abnormal and autistic in quality). The
ADOS was administered at the 18, 24 and 36-month visits.
To account for the use of modules 1 and 2, severity scores
were calculated according to Gotham et al. (2009).
Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL; Mullen
1995)This is a standardized, normed developmental
assessment. It was administered at 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 24, and
36 months. Two developmental quotient scores were gen-
erated: visual reception developmental quotient (VRDQ),
constructed by dividing developmental age by chronolog-
ical age, and language developmental quotient (LDQ),
constructed by averaging the two language subscale
developmental age scores together and dividing by chro-
nological age.
Total Intervention Hours (CPEA Network, Unpub-
lished) Parents reported enrollment in treatment pro-
grams for developmental delays or concerns from ages 9 to
36 months. Types of treatment included: applied behavior
analysis, other in-home programs, speech therapy, occu-
pational therapy, and physical therapy. Participation in
generalized socialization classes (e.g., Gymboree
Ò
) and
typical preschool were excluded. The start and end dates of
each type of intervention were recorded as well as average
Table 3 The treatment goal and approach for each of six target symptoms
Symptom Theme Goal Procedure
(1) Visual fixations on objects Joining into toy
play
Facilitate: attention shifting from
object to parent; parallel play;
and sharing of emotion
regarding the object
Follow infant interest to an object and
develop a turn-taking social game
(trading turns with the object or using
double objects)
(2) Abnormal repetitive behaviors Encouraging
flexible and
varied actions
and play
Increase number and maturity of
schemas child uses
(for repetitive object behaviors); Follow
infant interest while developing age-
appropriate sensory motor schemas for
object play (for repetitive body
movements) Shape motor movements
into communicative gestures using
graduated, or least to most, prompting
hierarchy
(3) Lack of intentional communicative acts
and (4) lack of coordination of gaze, affect,
and voice in reciprocal, turn-taking
interactions
Increasing
engagement
and
interaction
Elicit communicative gestures,
vocalizations, and integrated
communicative behaviors for
varied pragmatic intents
Offer and follow the child into preferred
activities and dyadic and triadic joint
activities; then increase and shape these
three behaviors via prompting, shaping,
fading, and differential reinforcement
(5) Lack of age-appropriate phonemic
development
Developing the
foundations of
speech
Increase frequency of child
vocalizations and shape specific
consonant and vowel
Use imitation and other interaction
strategies and differential
reinforcement, shaping, and prompting
(6) Decreasing gaze, social interest and
engagement
Maximizing
social
attention
Maximize gaze and increase
infant pleasure and engagement
in social interaction
Position self and child for maximal face-
to face orientation and provide object
and social games that follow infant
preferences, delivered to maximize
infant attention and pause for infant
turns
J Autism Dev Disord
123

hours received per week. Weeks in treatment were calcu-
lated and then multiplied by average hours a week for an
estimate of total hours enrolled in treatment.
Clinical Best Estimate (CBE) Outcome classification At
the end of the 36-month visit, examiners classified each
child into one of two CBE categories, ASD or no ASD.
Children classified with ASD met DSM-IV-TR criteria for
Autistic Disorder or Pervasive Developmental Disorder-
Not Otherwise Specified (PDDNOS) and had an ADOS
score over the ASD cutoff (APA 2000). All other partici-
pants were classified with Typical Development.
Infant Start Therapist Fidelity Measure (Rogers et al.
2012c) This measure was a rating of therapist use of
specified techniques and behaviors to be used in the work
with parents. It was rated following each treatment and fol-
low-up session using a 3-point Likert scale with 16 items.
Therapists’ self-rated scores were averaged to create an
overall score for each session; the mean for 42 sessions with
complete data =2.76, SD .20. Other trained therapists rated
27 sessions either during observation or via video review; the
mean was 2.73, SD .21, showing excellent agreement
between self-rating and ratings by others overall.
Procedures
Overview of Family Procedures Treatment began
immediately after enrollment and continued for 12 clinic
treatment sessions scheduled 1 week apart, followed by an
assessment. A 6-week maintenance period then followed
involving 1-h clinic visits with the therapist at post-treat-
ment weeks 2, 4, and 6. Maintenance sessions included:
discussion of child and parent progress; discussion of
challenges and problems; and observation of play interac-
tions. Children that were reported by their parents to show
delayed or poor progress on any of the six targeted topics
were seen for additional 1-h bimonthly booster sessions
until improvements in related learning objectives occurred
for two consecutive sessions. Three families attended these
booster sessions after the completion of the maintenance
phase, with the number of sessions ranging from 0 to 5,
depending on the needs and wishes of the families. Finally,
children received follow-up assessments at 15, 18, 24, and
36 months of age. None of the enrolled families discon-
tinued participation in the study. At any assessment in
which the child demonstrated clinical problems on stan-
dardized measures, families were provided with interven-
tion referrals for public intervention services. Three
families sought autism specific intervention services at
some point during their enrollment, and two additional
families sought speech therapy.
Treatment Procedures
The treatment consisted of 12 consecutive weekly 1-h
clinic sessions. Sessions were conducted by the first, sec-
ond, and third authors of this paper who developed the
parent curriculum (Rogers et al. 2012a) from ESDM
techniques (Rogers and Dawson 2010), adapted the
coaching methods (Hanft et al. 2003), and developed the
parent and therapist fidelity of implementation measures.
All were highly experienced, credentialed professionals
with many years of experience working with families and
young children with ASD.
The sessions were organized as follows. Session 1 was
devoted to developing 5–6 measurable child learning
objectives from curriculum tools for parents to practice
with their child throughout the intervention phase, based on
parental goals and the target autism symptoms. Across
sessions 2–12, parents were sequentially coached on par-
enting techniques to address developmental needs related
to one of the six target symptoms, with one area focused on
for two consecutive weeks. These were taught in random
order to the families. The six symptoms and related topics
and techniques are outlined in Table 3.
In addition to the six target symptom interventions,
therapists also provided parents with specific interventions
for other delays, which were individualized for each child
to address weaknesses identified during the curriculum
assessment, embedded into everyday routines.
Sessions included six sequenced 5–10 min activities: (1)
A greeting and parent progress sharing; (2) Warm-up
period of parent–child play, after which both parent and
therapist reflected on the activity related to intervention
goals and elicited child behaviors. If necessary, additional
coaching and practice occurred at this point to strengthen
parent’s practice of this particular topic; (3) Therapist
introduced a new topic through verbal description and
written materials from the manual, with discussion fitting
the new topic into parent’s goals; (4) Parent practiced new
technique while the therapist provided coaching, followed
by reflection; (5) Parent practiced and was coached on the
topic skill across one or two other play and caregiving
activities (e.g., books, feeding, dressing or changing, toy
play, and social play) until the parent demonstrated the
technique at a fidelity of implementation rate of 80 % or
higher; (6) Session concluded with discussion and visual-
ization of generalization of a new skill in various activities
and settings at home and in the community, and time for
discussion of any other topics the parent introduced during
the session. The parent left with self-instructional manual
materials on the target technique to review. Each session
was videotaped for clinical supervision and fidelity coding
of parent and therapist.
J Autism Dev Disord
123

Fidelity of Treatment Implementation by Parent and by
Therapist Fidelity of treatment implementation measures
were developed and used to assess ongoing parent and
therapist fidelity. The Infant Start 19-item parent fidelity
tool (Rogers et al. 2012c) uses a Likert-based, 3-point
rating system (1 =seldom present, 2 =sometimes,
3=consistently present) associated with the six target
symptoms and related parenting interventions (described
above) that were the topics of the weekly treatment ses-
sions. Parent fidelity was coded by therapists during the
first ‘‘warm-up’’ parent–child play activity of each session,
before any coaching or teaching had been carried out.
Therapists coded this after establishing initial inter-rater
reliability of 80 % or better of total item scores. Mean
score was the variable used for weekly analysis and could
range from 1 to 3, with a higher score reflecting interac-
tions closer to the intervention strategies taught to parents.
Therapist fidelity of implementation measures similarly
consisted of a 3-point (1 =not present; 2 =sometimes
present; 3 =clearly present) 17-item Likert-based rating
system. Items included: presence of five phases of the
session (initiation, observation, action, reflection, evalua-
tion); the six coaching characteristics (collaborative,
reflective, nonjudgmental, conversational and reciprocal,
performance-based and contextually-linked); and five
general parent learning goals. Fidelity was self-assessed by
the therapists immediately after the sessions.
Results
Analytic Approach
We first present our study enrollment data. We then present
the parent fidelity data from the Infant Start treatment as a
single-case design, followed by descriptions of therapist
fidelity of implementation and measures of parent satis-
faction. Then we present the group analyses starting from
9 months of age, the first point at which all seven infants in
the IS group had assessment data, up to 36 months of age.
In terms of the outcome measures, for the analysis of
autism symptom severity, we ran group comparisons sep-
arately at pre- and post-treatment because we used two
different autism symptom measures due to age limitations
for each measure. At 9 months of age, groups were com-
pared on AOSI scores with a univariate analysis of vari-
ance. At 18, 24, and 36 months, groups were compared
within a linear mixed effects model (LME). In the LME
model of ADOS severity scores, age (18, 24, and
36 months) and group were included as fixed effects as
well as a group by age interaction. Total intervention hours
were included in the model as a covariate. Developmental
scores were calculated from the MSEL across all time
points, so variables from those measures were analyzed
with a linear mixed effects model (LME) approach with
maximum likelihood estimation. In the LME model, age
(9–36 months) and group were included in the model as
fixed effects as well as a group by age interaction. Total
intervention hours were added to the model as a covariate.
Significant effects were followed up with post hoc com-
parisons with a Bonferroni adjustment for multiple com-
parisons. For all significant simple comparisons, Cohen’s d
calculated from estimated marginal means is also reported.
Parent Fidelity
Fidelity scores for each parent are presented in Fig. 2.All
parents demonstrated improvement across the 12 weeks of
treatment and maintained skills across three follow-up
visits. Potential range of scores is 1–3. A paired sample
ttest of average scores across the first three treatment
sessions compared to average scores across the three post-
treatment follow-up visits revealed a significant increase of
more than 1.5 SD in scores (t(6) =6.13, p=.001; start of
treatment, M =2.33, SD =.24; follow-up, M =2.84,
SD =.12).
Therapist Fidelity
A total of 69 treatment sessions (73 %) were rated for
therapist fidelity. Therapist fidelity average score was a
mean of 2.74 (SD =.21) on a Likert-based rating system,
with scores ranging from 1 to 3 on 16 items.
Parent Satisfaction Rating
Six of the seven parents in the IS group completed the
Parent Satisfaction Rating Scale at the exit of intervention.
Scores on the individual items were all within the neutral to
positive range (3–5). The overall mean of satisfaction
across items was 4.25 (SD =.50).
Working Alliance Scale
Six of the seven parents in the IS group completed the
Working Alliance Scale at the exit of intervention. All
parents rated items at the highest end of the scale (range of
individual item scores 6–7). The group average total score
was 6.94 (SD =.11).
Autism Symptoms
At 9 months, there was a significant effect of group (F(4,
27) =3.10, p=.03) in the model for AOSI total scores.
The IS group had significantly more symptoms than all
other comparison groups except the DR group (AO:
J Autism Dev Disord
123

d=1.81, p=.004; HR: d=1.70, p=.007; LR:
d=1.36, p=.03). There was a trend towards a significant
effect of group on number of AOSI markers (F(4,
27) =2.19, p=.10). No other comparisons between
groups reached significance at 9 months.
In the model of ADOS scores from 18 to 36 months,
there was a significant main effect of group (F(4,
55.80) =13.19, p\.001). Main effects of age, treatment
hours and the interaction between age and group did not
reach significance. The IS group had significantly lower
ADOS severity scores than the AO (p\.01) group and a
trend towards lower scores than the DR (d=-1.98,
p=.06) group. The scores of the IS group were signifi-
cantly higher than the HR (d=1.79, p\.05) group and a
trend towards higher scores than the LR (d=1.77,
p=.05) group. Children in the IS group had fewer autism
symptoms than children with a diagnosis or those who
declined the referral to treatment, but were still exhibiting
more symptoms than children with typical development in
either risk group.
Developmental Scores
In terms of visual receptive abilities of the 5 groups, there
were significant main effects of group (F(4, 131.89) =
7.46, p\.001), age (F(5, 44.75) =3.88, p\.01), and age
by group interaction (F(20, 47.30) =1.84, p\.05). The
effect of total treatment hours did not reach significance
(F(1, 101.96) =3.02, p=.09). Simple comparisons
revealed no differences between the IS group and any other
group at the 9, 12, and 15-month time points. At 18 months,
the IS group had significantly higher scores than the DR
group (d=2.01, p=\.05). At 36 months, the IS group
had higher scores than the DR group (d=2.41, p=.01).
In terms of language development, there were significant
main effects of group (F(4, 114.64) =14.30, p\.001), a
significant effect of age (F(5, 50.41) =2.52, p\.05) and a
significant age by group interaction (F(20, 52.63) =2.49,
p\.012). The effect of total treatment hours did not reach
significance (F(1, 116.89) =2.29, p=.l3). At 9 months,
the IS group had significantly lower LDQ scores than the
HR and LR groups (HR: d=-1.70, p\.05; LR: d=
-1.98, p=.01). At 12 months, the IS group only had lower
scores than the LR group (d=-1.78, p\.05). At
15 months, the IS group had lower scores than the HR and
LR groups (HR d=-2.23, p\.01; LR d=-3.02,
p\.001). However, by 18 months, the IS group did not
significantly differ from any other group. At 24 months, the
IS group had higher scores than the AO (d=1.99, p\.01)
and DR (d=2.99, p=.001) groups. At 36 months, the IS
group continued to have higher scores than the DR group
(d=2.42, p=.01), but the difference between the IS and
AO groups no longer reached significance (d=.90,
p=.52), although it continued to show a moderate effect
size. There were no significant differences between the IS
and HR or LR group from 18 to 24 months of age. See
Fig. 3for representations of these group differences.
To determine whether differences in rates of Expressive
and Receptive Language development in the groups might
affect the results, we also repeated the analysis using
models built separately from Receptive and Expressive
Language scores. The results from these did not differ from
the models run with the scores combined, as described
above.
Finally, we examined rates of overall DQ at or below 70
at 36 months. One IS child (14 %), 2 children in the AO
group (28.6 %), and 3 children (75 %) in the DE group
scored in this range.
Clinical Best Estimate Outcome Classification
At the final visit, each child was assigned a diagnostic
category based on standardized assessments and clinical
judgment. In the IS group, only two children received a
diagnosis of ASD. One was a male infant sibling who had
low developmental scores, met criteria for an intellectual
disability, and was diagnosed with DSM-IV-TR Autistic
Disorder. The second was a female infant sibling who was
diagnosed with PDDNOS and had verbal and nonverbal
MSEL scores in the normal range. The other five children
were not classified as having an ASD or intellectual
disability.
In the DR group, three of the four children (75 %)
received a diagnosis of ASD. Two met criteria for DSM-
IV-TR Autistic Disorder and also presented with intellec-
tual disability. One met criteria for PDDNOS and also
presented with language delays. Although the fourth child
in the DR group did not meet criteria for ASD, she pre-
sented with intellectual disability.
Discussion
The promise of early identification of ASD is built on the
premise of earlier treatment, which is thought to maximize
effects of treatment and amelioration of the disabling
effects of ASD due to the greater plasticity of younger
neural systems and prevention of secondary effects due to
environmental alterations in response to ASD symptoms.
Findings from many infant sibling studies (Bryson et al.
2007; Ozonoff et al. 2010) have led to much greater
awareness of evolving symptoms of ASD in the second
6 months of life in the subgroup of children who have early
symptoms. The symptoms described by such studies were
J Autism Dev Disord
123

used in the present study to identify a group of infants with
at-risk symptoms before the first year of life and to develop
and test a parent-implementation intervention that could
reduce symptoms and foster more typical developmental
patterns and rates, thus ameliorating the effects of ASD on
early development.
Five questions were addressed by this study:
1. Could symptomatic infants younger than 15 months of
age be identified and recruited for a treatment study?
This is a low incidence group of infants. Our study
involved 3 years of recruitment, combining the
resources of a large infant sibling study and a
community that is very aware of ASD and has many
services for young children with ASD. From these
efforts, 24 children were referred and 7 were enrolled.
Four of the six children who were referred from the
infant sibling project and qualified for the study were
enrolled, while 3 of 14 children referred from the
community qualified for the study and were enrolled.
Clearly, infants referred from the infant sibling study
due to their symptoms were far more likely to meet our
stringent enrollment criteria—persistent, multiple ASD
symptoms and independent clinician agreement—than
those referred from the community. This likely reflects
the impact of several variables, including the greater
risk in ASD families and the greater knowledge of the
referring professionals in the infant sibling study
compared to the family referrals from the general
community. However, we needed both types of
referrals to meet our enrollment goals, and parents of
infant siblings were less inclined to enroll than were
the community referrals. Those who did not enroll
tended to choose to wait until a later evaluation to see
if symptoms continued, thus missing the cut-off age for
the study. Hence, working within an infant-sibling
study may require some additional efforts to motivate
families to enroll as early as autism symptoms raise
concerns for the staff.
Interestingly, no families who enrolled dropped out of
the study. This is quite a different picture than one sees in
the population screening studies, in which there is a very
large drop-out of infants screened at high risk for autism
Fig. 3 Visual reception DQ and Language DQ across the treatment and follow-up period. Insert bar graphs present significant pairwise
comparisons at pre-treatment (9 months) and post-treatment (36 months) *pB.05, **pB.01
J Autism Dev Disord
123

from follow-up assessments and treatment (Dietz et al.
2006). This lack of attrition may reflect the greater moti-
vation of families who actively seek out studies and clinical
services for their children due to family-recognized risk
status. The low rate of referrals, however, indicates that in
order to advance to the next level of treatment science, a
randomized group design (Smith et al. 2007) conducted at
multiple sites will be needed in order to gather reasonably
sized groups in this age range.
2. Can parents learn and deliver the intervention with
high fidelity of implementation and maintain this after
short-term intervention ends? The single subject graph
presented in (Fig. 2) demonstrates parent mastery of
the techniques (defined as 80 % of the total possible
score, or a mean score of 2.40) for all parents by the
end of the 12th session. It also demonstrates their
maintenance of skills after treatment ended. For 6 of
the 7 parents, mastery occurred at week 7. This
parallels previous publications of parent ESDM learn-
ing data (Rogers et al. 2012a,b; Vismara et al. 2009,
2012), and so replicates our previous findings that
parents can learn these techniques in less than 8
contact hours. Other low intensity parent-delivered
interventions also demonstrate parent fidelity of imple-
mentation (Kasari et al. 2010; Carter et al. 2011)of
responsive techniques. The intervention appears to
affect parent interactions in the desired directions, as
measured in contexts and with experimenters that
differ from the treatment sessions.
A caveat, however, involves the increased motivation
that may well be present in parents who enroll in infant
sibling studies and parents who call specialized centers
with concerns about autism in their infants. The levels of
motivation, commitment, and resources to carry out inter-
ventions at home seen in these families may not reflect that
of community families identified through early screenings.
3. Are parents satisfied with this low intensity, short-term
intervention? Parent ratings demonstrate high levels of
satisfaction with the intervention, that are consistent
across the 6/7 parents who provided data. Parents also
report strong working alliances with their IS therapist.
It follows that the intervention was well-received by
the parents.
4. Are infants who received the intervention less impaired
in terms of ASD and delays at age 3 than those who had
similar amounts of symptoms at 9 months but did not
receive the intervention? This question is best answered
by comparing the IS group to the AO and DR groups.
Compared to the AO group, IS infants had significantly
more autism symptoms at 9 months of age and signif-
icantly lower autism severity scores over the
18–36 month age period. In terms of developmental
scores, the IS group did not differ significantly from the
AO group on visual reception scores at any age point. In
terms of verbal quotients, the IS group had significantly
higher scores at 24 months. At 36 months, they contin-
ued to have a higher verbal score with the difference not
statistically significant but demonstrating a moderate
effect size (d=.90). Thus, the IS group had less
impairment in terms of ASD symptoms and develop-
mental delays than the AO group at 36 months.
Compared to the DR group, the IS group had equivalent
autism symptoms at 9 months and a trend (p=.06)
towards lower ADOS severity scores from 18 to
36 months, with a large effect size (d=-1.98) and much
less ASD outcome than the DR group (29 % compared to
75 %). In terms of developmental scores, the IS group had
significantly higher quotients than the DR group in visual
reception at 18 and 36 months. In terms of language quo-
tients, the IS group had higher scores at 24 and 36 months
than the DR group. Visual inspection of Fig. 3reveals that
the degree of developmental acceleration that the IS group
experienced between 12 and 24 months stands in contrast
to any of the other groups. Finally, in terms of rates of
overall DQ at or below 70, one IS child (14 %), 2 children
in the AO group (28.6 %), and 3 children (75 %) in the DE
group scored in this range.
Without a randomized controlled trial, we do not know
whether the course of these IS infants would have been
more like the AO and DR groups without intervention.
However, the multiple points above converge to suggest
that these IS infants were in fact at high risk for autism and
the intervention may have contributed to the differences in
their outcomes compared to the other two groups.
What might this improvement in the IS infants mean about
early ASD? In several ways, their improvements mirror the
improvements that slightly older children make in the most
efficacious interventions (Dawson et al. 2010; Lovaas 1987;
Smith et al. 2000), so acceleration of developmental rates
and decreased ASD symptoms resulting from early inter-
vention should not be surprising. However, these infants are
much younger than the children thus far studied, they are
showing changes much faster than preschoolers in intensive
intervention, and they are receiving far less professional
intervention (though not necessarily any fewer hours per
week of intervention, since the parents are integrating
intervention into all their daily routines). More rapid change
in younger infants should not surprise us, given the increased
plasticity of infant neural development and the rapid learning
capacity of infants. Additionally, the skills these infants are
acquiring—language, joint attention, imitation, reciprocal
communication—are skills that normally develop in the
12–24 month period. Thus, these infants are acquiring skills
J Autism Dev Disord
123

that are appropriate for their chronological ages, and there
may be enhanced neural readiness to acquire these skills in
this period, both for the affected infants and also for typically
developing infants. Finally, the change in these infants adds
weight to the idea that some of the problems associated with
ASD may not be due to the causal biological difference, but
may instead represent secondary effects of ASD, likely
associated with alterations in the social-communicative
environment that stem from the infants’ poor social-com-
munication and their ongoing lack of their typical responses
and initiations to their family members (see Dawson et al.
2001; Mundy and Crowson 1997, for a fuller discussion of
the social reward theory of autism). All of the science and
theory that has led the field to earlier screening and earlier
treatment of ASD would predict this outcome: that more
improvement will occur when autism is detected and treated
as early as possible. Consequently, this finding may represent
proof-of-principle; however, only rigorous clinical trials can
actually test this hypothesis.
One surprising finding in this study was the rate of fami-
lies who declined enrollment for their symptomatic infants.
Four of seven infant sibling study families who qualified for
the treatment study declined enrollment, compared to the
community referrals who qualified, all of whom enrolled.
This may reflect the fact that the infant sibling study families
were not expecting to be referred to treatment, and those who
declined were not concerned yet about their infants, knew
that another assessment would occur in 3 months, and so
chose to wait to see if the next evaluation confirmed the
concerns. In contrast, the community families all had sig-
nificant concerns and sought out help. In terms of effects of
infant sibling status on fidelity measures, the fidelity scores
in this study, both at baseline and over time, are very similar
to those we have reported in previous studies of community
referred toddlers in parent-implemented interventions. So
far, we have not experienced clinical differences in our
intervention experiences or our data reflecting parent use of
technique in the infant sibling families compared to other
families, though the numbers are too small to analyze this.
There is a second important contrast, involving outcomes,
between the infant siblings and community referrals in this
study. In terms of autism diagnosis in the third year of life,
three of the seven IS infants were diagnosed with ASD at
some time during the age period 12–24 months. However,
one of the children’s symptoms (a community referral)
improved so much that she no longer qualified for any type of
diagnosis by 36 months, and a second child’s symptoms (a
female sibling) were borderline (PDD-NOS) at 36 months.
The third child (a male sibling) met all criteria for Autistic
Disorder and also had significant developmental delays at 24
and 36 months. This was the one child who began treatment
later than 12 months of age. Thus, 2 of the 7 children
(28.5 %) in the IS group, both siblings, had an autism
spectrum diagnosis at age 3. In contrast, none of the com-
munity-enrolled children were autism-risk siblings, and
none of them were diagnosed with ASD at age 3. There are
several potential implications of this difference, including
greater developmental flexibility in non-siblings, early
symptoms due to different causes in the two referral groups,
among others. Future studies should carefully characterize
community enrollees clinically to search for various types of
risk factors that could be involved in these early symptoms.
As in any pilot study, there are a number of weaknesses
to consider. First, the treated group is very small. With only
seven infants in the treatment group, no conclusions can be
drawn. The number of children located and enrolled in this
study by or before their first birthday suggests that
recruitment for a larger trial will be aided by using an
infant sibling recruitment approach and by conducting the
study across multiple sites. Second, parent fidelity ratings
were based on therapist assessments. Third, the comparison
groups were drawn from an existing sample of convenience
and their data do not provide causal evidence that the
treatment caused the improvement in the treated group.
Furthermore, the baseline period was consistent for all
subjects and does not demonstrate control for change due
to other variables in the IS group.
There are also several strengths to be noted in this small
study. First is the use of four different comparison groups
all drawn from the same study and all followed longitu-
dinally on the same measures and during the same time
period. This allows us to contrast the status and growth
patterns of the IS group across the entire period, from
enrollment to age 3 outcomes. A second strength is the use
of standardized tests and naive child raters to assess chil-
dren’s development and autism symptoms. Finally, few
low intensity parent-implemented toddler treatment studies
have demonstrated significant changes on standard scores,
relying instead on changing frequencies of one or a few
discrete behaviors measured using video analyses of par-
ent–child interaction. Change on standard scores requires
that child changes being fostered by parents during every-
day routines are robust enough to be elicited by strangers—
the assessors—and in situations far removed from parent–
child dyadic interaction—namely, a formal standardized
assessment in a clinic. If these findings are replicated in a
larger, controlled study, it would suggest that deep struc-
tural changes, not simple surface changes, are occurring in
the infants’ learning in multiple areas and in development
of more appropriate social communication capacities.
Summary and Conclusions
In this effort to alter very early autism symptoms through a
parent—implemented intervention study, seven infants
J Autism Dev Disord
123

between the ages of 9 and 15 months were enrolled in a
pilot study to examine proof-of-principle regarding infant
treatment of ASD. The infants and parents were provided
with 12 weeks of a low intensity parent coaching model
derived from the ESDM. The infants were followed from
9 months to 36 months, and their overall developmental
rates and autism symptoms were compared to four other
groups of infants also at high risk for ASD due to sibling
status and increased early symptoms, including one group
who would be diagnosed with autism within the coming
year. The treated group began as the most symptomatic and
language delayed of the groups, but over the 18–36 month
age period they demonstrated autism symptom scores that
were significantly fewer than those children who developed
ASD. The language developmental rates of the treated
group accelerated more steeply than any of the other
groups of infants, moving from the delayed range into the
average range by 24–36 months. Because this was not a
randomized study, no conclusions about the efficacy of the
experimental intervention can be drawn. However, given
the need for treatment approaches for this age group in
response to infant autism screening and public awareness
campaigns, and given the outcomes at age 3 of the treated
infants in relation to four different comparison groups of
infants all drawn from the same autism infant sibling study,
the data from the study indicate that a controlled trial is a
feasible and an important next step.
Acknowledgments This project was funded by grants from
NICHD/NIMH (R21 HD065275: Rogers R01 MH068398: Ozonoff)
and support from Autism Speaks and the John and Marcia Goldman
Foundation. The authors would like to acknowledge SoYeon Baik for
her assistance with nearly every aspect of the project, Diane Larzelere
for her assistance with manuscript preparation, and the children and
families who gave of their time to participate in the study.
References
American Psychiatric Association (Ed.). (2000). Diagnostic and
statistical manual-IV-TR. Washington, DC: American Psychiat-
ric Publishing Incorporated.
Barrera, M. E., Doucet, D. A., & Kitching, K. J. (1990). Early home
intervention and socio-emotional development of preterm
infants. Infant Mental Health Journal, 11(2), 142–157.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Liaw, F. R., & Klebanov, P. K. (1992). Effects of
early intervention on cognitive function of low birth weight
preterm infants. The Journal of Pediatrics, 120(3), 350–359.
Bryson, S. E., Zwaigenbaum, L., Brian, J., Roberts, W., Szatmari, P.,
Rombough, V., et al. (2007). A prospective case series of high-
risk infants who developed autism. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 37(1), 12–24.
Bryson, S. E., Zwaigenbaum, L., McDermott, C., Rombough, V., &
Brian, J. (2008). The autism observation scale for infants: Scale
development and reliability data. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 38(4), 731–738.
Carter, A. S., Messinger, D. S., Stone, W. L., Celimli, S., Nahmias, A.
S., & Yoder, P. (2011). A randomized controlled trial of Hanen’s
‘More Than Words’ in toddlers with early autism symptoms.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(7), 741–752.
Chapman, R. S. (2000). Children’s language learning: An interac-
tionist perspective. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
41(1), 33–54.
Charlop-Christy, M. H., & Carpenter, M. H. (2000). Modified
incidental teaching sessions: A procedure for parents to increase
spontaneous speech in their children with autism. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 2(2), 98–112.
Davis, N. O., Kuhn, J. C., & Carter, A. S. (2006). Children’s problem
behaviors and self-efficacy among mothers of toddlers with
autism. The moderating role of working alliance. Poster
presentation, International Meeting of Autism Researchers;
Montreal.
Dawson, G., Osterling, J., Rinaldi, J., Carver, L., & McPartland, J.
(2001). Brief report: Recognition memory and stimulus-reward
associations: Indirect support for the role of ventromedial
prefrontal dysfunction in autism. Journal of Autism and Devel-
opmental Disorders, 31(3), 337–341.
Dawson, G., Rogers, S., Munson, J., et al. (2010). Randomized
controlled trial of the Early Start Denver Model: A develop-
mental behavioral intervention for toddlers with autism: Effects
on IQ, adaptive behavior, and autism diagnosis. Pediatrics,
125(1), e17–e23.
Dietz, C., Swinkels, S., van Daalen, E., van Engeland, H., &
Buitelaar, J. K. (2006). Screening for autistic spectrum disorder
in children aged 14–15 months. II: Population screening with the
Early Screening of Autistic Traits Questionnaire (ESAT). Design
and general findings. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 36(6), 713–722.
Diggle, T., McConachie, H. R., & Randle, V. R. L. (2002). Parent-
mediated early intervention for young children with autism
spectrum disorder. The Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews, 2. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003496.
Ference, J., & Curtin, S. (2013). Attention to lexical stress and early
vocabulary growth in 5-month-olds at risk for autism spectrum
disorder. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(4),
891–903.
Gotham, K., Pickles, A., & Lord, C. (2009). Standardizing ADOS
scores for a measure of severity in autism spectrum disorders.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(5),
693–705.
Green, J., Wan, M. W., Guiraud, J., Holsgrove, S., McNally, J.,
Slonims, V., et al. (2013). Intervention for infants at risk of
developing autism: A case series. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 43(11), 2502–2514.
Hanft, B. E., Rush, D. D., & Shelden, M. L. (2003). Coaching families
and colleagues in early childhood. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Harris, S. L., Wolchik, S. A., & Weitz, S. (1981). The acquisition of
language skills by autistic children: Can parents do the job?
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 11(4), 373–384.
Johnson-Martin, N. M., Jens, K. G., Attermeier, S. M., & Hacker, B.
(1991). The Carolina curriculum for infants and toddlers with
special needs (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes.
Kasari, C., Gulsrud, A. C., Wong, C., Kwon, S., & Locke, J. (2010).
Randomized controlled caregiver mediated joint engagement
intervention for toddlers with autism. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 40(9), 1045–1056.
Koegel, R. L., Bimbela, A., & Schreibman, L. (1996). Collateral
effects of parent training on family interactions. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 26(3), 347–359.
Koegel, R. L., Glahn, T. J., & Nieminen, G. S. (1978). Generalization
of parent-training results. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
11(1), 95–109.
Landa, R. J., Gross, A. L., Stuart, E. A., & Bauman, M. (2012). Latent
class analysis of early developmental trajectory in baby siblings
J Autism Dev Disord
123

of children with autism. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 53(9), 986–996.
Laski, K. E., Charlop, M. H., & Schreibman, L. (1988). Training
parents to use the natural language paradigm to increase their
autistic children’s speech. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
21(4), 391–400.
Lloyd-Fox, S., Blasi, A., Elwell, C. E., Charman, T., Murphy, D., &
Johnson, M. H. (2013). Reduced neural sensitivity to social
stimuli in infants at risk for autism. Proceedings of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences, 280(1758), 20123026.
Lord, C., Risi, S., Lambrecht, L., Cook, E. H., Levanthal, B. L.,
DiLavore, P. C., et al. (2000). The autism diagnostic observation
schedule-generic. A standard measure of social and communi-
cation deficits associated with the spectrum of autism. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30(3), 205–223.
Lovaas, O. I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal educational
and intellectual functioning in young autistic children. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(1), 3.
McEachin, J. J., Smith, T., & Lovaas, O. I. (1993). Long-term
outcome for children with autism who received early intensive
behavioral treatment. American Journal of Mental Retardation,
97, 359–372.
Messinger, D., Young, G. S., Ozonoff, S., Dobkins, K., Carter, A.,
Zwaigenbaum, L., et al. (2013). Beyond autism: A baby siblings
research consortium study of high-risk children at three years of
age. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 52(3), 300–308.
Mullen, E. (1995). The mullen scales of early learning. Circle Pines,
MN: American Guidance.
Mundy, P., & Crowson, M. (1997). Joint attention and early social
communication: Implications for research on intervention with
autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27(6),
653–676.
Ozonoff, S., Iosif, A. M., Baguio, F., Cook, I. C., Hill, M. M.,
Hutman, T., et al. (2010). A prospective study of the emergence
of early behavioral signs of autism. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(3), 256–266.
Ozonoff, S., Young, G. S., Belding, A., Hill, M., Hill, A., Hutman, T.,
et al. (2014). The broader autism phenotype in infancy: When
does it emerge? Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 53, 398–407. PMCID: in progress.
Ozonoff, S., Young, G. S., Goldring, S., Greiss-Hess, L., Herrera, A.
M., Steele, J., et al. (2008). Gross motor development, movement
abnormalities, and early identification of autism. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(4), 644–656.
Pan, B. A., Rowe, M. L., Singer, J. D., & Snow, C. E. (2005).
Maternal correlates of growth in toddler vocabulary production
in low-income families. Child Development, 76(4), 763–782.
Resnick, M. B., Armstrong, S., & Carter, R. L. (1988). Developmen-
tal intervention program for high-risk premature infants: Effects
on development and parent-infant interactions. Journal of
Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 9(2), 73–78.
Rogers, S. J., & Dawson, G. (2010). The Early Start Denver Model for
young children with autism: Promoting language, learning, and
engagement. NY: Guilford.
Rogers, S. J., Dawson, G., & Vismara, L. (2012a). An early start for
your child with autism: Using everyday activities to help kids
connect, communicate and learn. NY: Guilford.
Rogers, S. J., Estes, A., Lord, C., Vismara, L., Winter, J., Fitzpatrick,
A., et al. (2012b). Effects of a brief Early Start Denver model
(ESDM)-based parent intervention on toddlers at risk for autism
spectrum disorders: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 51(10),
1052–1065.
Rogers, S. J., & Vismara, L. (2014). Interventions for infants and
toddlers at risk for autism spectrum disorder. In F. Volkmar, S.
J. Rogers, R. Pelphry, & K. Paul (Eds.), Handbook of autism and
developmental disorders (4th ed., pp. 739–769). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Rogers, S. J., Vismara, L., & Wagner, A. (2012). Infant start fidelity.
University of California, Davis. Unpublished material.
Ross, G. S. (1984). Home intervention for premature infants of low-
income families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54(2),
263–270.
Sacrey, L. A. R., Bryson, S. E., & Zwaigenbaum, L. (2013). Prospective
examination of visual attention during play in infants at high-risk
for autism spectrum disorder: A longitudinal study from 6 to
36 months of age. Behavioural Brain Research, 256, 441–450.
Sanz, M. T., & Menendez, J. (1996). A study of the effect of age of
onset of treatment on the observed development of Down’s
syndrome babies. Early Child Development and Care, 118(1),
93–101.
Sanz-Aparicio, M. T., & Balan
˜a, J. M. (2002). Early language
stimulation of Down’s Syndrome babies: A study on the
optimum age to begin. Early Child Development and Care,
172(6), 651–656.
Sanz-Aparicio, M. T., & Balan
˜a, J. M. (2003). Early learning in
psychomotor training of Down’s syndrome. Early Child Devel-
opment and Care, 173(2–3), 317–321.
Schreibman, L., & Koegel, R. L. (1997). Fostering self-management:
Parent-delivered pivotal response training for children with
autistic disorder. In E. D. Hibbs & P. S. Jensen (Eds.),
Psychosocial treatments for child and adolescent disorders:
Empirically based strategies for clinical practice. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Seifer, R., Clark, G. N., & Sameroff, A. J. (1991). Positive effects of
interaction coaching on infants with developmental disabilities and
their mothers. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96,1–11.
Short, A. B. (1984). Short-term treatment outcome using parents as
co-therapists for their own autistic children. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 25(3), 443–458.
Simpson, J. A., Collins, W. A., Tran, S., & Haydon, K. C. (2007).
Attachment and the experience and expression of emotions in
romantic relationships: A developmental perspective. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 355.
Sloper, P., Glenn, S. M., & Cunningham, C. C. (1986). The effect of
intensity of training on sensori-motor development in infants
with Down’s syndrome. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research,
30(2), 149–162.
Smith, T., Groen, A. D., & Wynn, J. W. (2000). Randomized trial of
intensive early intervention for children with pervasive devel-
opmental disorder. American Journal on Mental Retardation,
105, 269–285.
Smith, T., Scahill, L., Dawson, G., Guthrie, D., Lord, C., Odom, S.,
et al. (2007). Designing research studies on psychosocial
interventions in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 37(2), 354–366.
Steiner, A. M., Gengoux, G. W., Klin, A., & Chawarska, K. (2013).
Pivotal response treatment for infants at-risk for autism spectrum
disorders: A pilot study. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 43(1), 91–102.
Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Bornstein, M. H. (1994). Specificity in
mother-toddler language-play relations across the second year.
Developmental Psychology, 30(2), 283.
Tomasello, M. (1992). The social bases of language acquisition.
Social Development, 1(1), 67–87.
Vismara, L. A., Colombi, C., & Rogers, S. J. (2009). Can 1 hour per
week of therapy lead to lasting changes in young children with
autism? Autism: An International Journal, 13(1), 93–115.
Vismara, L. A., Young, G. S., & Rogers, S. J. (2012). Telehealth for
expanding the reach of early autism training to parents. Autism
Research and Treatment,. doi:10.1155/2012/121878.
J Autism Dev Disord
123

Wallace, K. S., & Rogers, S. J. (2010). Intervening in infancy:
Implications for autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(12), 1300–1320.
Wan, M. W., Green, J., Elsabbagh, M., Johnson, M., Charman, T., &
Plummer, F. (2013). Quality of interaction between at-risk
infants and caregiver at 12–15 months is associated with 3-year
autism outcome. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
54(7), 763–771.
Wetherby, A., & Prizant, B. (2002). Communication and symbolic
behavior scales developmental profile (1st ed.). Baltimore, MD:
Paul H. Brookes.
Zwaigenbaum, L., Bryson, S., Rogers, T., Roberts, W., Brian, J., &
Szatmari, P. (2005). Behavioral manifestations of autism in the
first year of life. International Journal of Developmental
Neuroscience, 23(2), 143–152.
J Autism Dev Disord
123