| Literature DB >> 33344381 |
Linyan Fu1, Jiao Weng1,2, Min Feng1, Xiang Xiao1, Ting Xiao1, Junli Fu1, Nana Qiu1, Chunyan Li1, Yun Da1, Xiaoyan Ke1.
Abstract
Background: Interindividual variability is important in the evolution of adaptative profiles of children with ASD having benefited from an early intervention make up for deficits in communication, language and social interactions. Therefore, this paper aimed to determine the nature of factors influencing the efficacy variability of a particular intervention technique i.e., "Play-based communication and behavior intervention" (PCBI).Entities:
Keywords: autism; intervention efficacy; mother-child dyadic synchrony; parenting stress; play-based communication and behavior intervention; predictors
Year: 2020 PMID: 33344381 PMCID: PMC7738436 DOI: 10.3389/fped.2020.581893
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pediatr ISSN: 2296-2360 Impact factor: 3.418
Figure 1This figure provides an illustration of free play.
Figure 2Outcome of children's variables at baseline (T1) and postintervention (T2). T1, preintervention; T2, postintervention; DQ1, Adaptive behavior; DQ2, Gross Motor behavior; DQ3, Language behavior; DQ4, Fine motor behavior; DQ5, Personal-social behavior; ATEC, The Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist; ABC, The Autism Behavior Checklist; B, L, S, and RSC, the subscales of ABC. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
Figure 3Outcome of mothers' variables at baseline (T1) and postintervention (T2). T1, preintervention; T2, postintervention; PSI-SF, The Parenting Stress Index Short Form; PD, PCDI, and DC, the subscales of PSI-SF; GSES, The General Self-Efficacy Scale. **p < 0.01.
Outcome of mother-child interaction variables at baseline (T1) and postintervention (T2).
| Positive engagement | 53.54 ± 8.78 | 56.66 ± 5.29 | 3.11 ± 8.41 | 2.59 | 0.010 |
| Negative engagement | 3.81 ± 6.80 | 1.96 ± 4.04 | −1.86 ± 7.52 | 1.57 | 0.117 |
| Disengagement | 2.50 ± 3.94 | 1.17 ± 1.98 | −1.33 ± 3.21 | 3.24 | 0.001 |
| Positive engagement | 9.16 ± 8.29 | 16.30 ± 11.47 | 7.14 ± 9.39 | 5.52 | <0.001 |
| Negative engagement | 3.46 ± 8.97 | 3.06 ± 7.79 | −0.40 ± 10.19 | 0.20 | 0.845 |
| Disengagement | 5.51 ± 8.04 | 5.94 ± 7.28 | 0.43 ± 8.93 | 0.09 | 0.932 |
| Child-object engagement | 41.81 ± 13.17 | 34.54 ± 12.79 | −7.27 ± 14.82 | 4.38 | <0.001 |
| Dyadic engagement | 9.03 ± 8.34 | 16.00 ± 11.56 | 6.97 ± 9.42 | 5.44 | <0.001 |
Data are expressed as the mean ± SD. T1, preintervention; T2, postintervention.
Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for children's and mothers' factors predicting intervention effect (change in ATEC score).
| Mothers' age | 0.33 | 0.50 | 0.08 | 0.18 | 0.26 | 0.05 | 0.19 | 0.25 | 0.05 |
| ABC total score T1 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.21 | −0.01 | 0.02 | −0.03 | −0.12 | 0.02 | −0.05 |
| Change in Children's DQ | −0.07 | 0.15 | −0.06 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.04 |
| Completion level | −15.69 | 1.27 | −0.87 | −15.02 | 1.25 | 0.83 | |||
| Change in PSI score | 0.17 | 0.07 | 0.17 | ||||||
| 0.06 | 0.74 | 0.76 | |||||||
| 1.25 | 41.45 | 37.41 | |||||||
| 0.06 | 0.68 | 0.03 | |||||||
| 1.25 | 152.60 | 6.32 | |||||||
p < 0.05;
p < 0.01.
Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for mother-child interaction factors predicting intervention effect (change in ATEC score).
| Change in mother negative engagement | −0.04 | 0.26 | −0.02 | -1.16 | 1.26 | −0.55 | -0.79 | 1.15 | −0.38 |
| Change in mother disengagement | 0.33 | 0.61 | 0.07 | -0.83 | 1.36 | −0.17 | -0.70 | 1.24 | −0.14 |
| Change in child negative engagement | 0.27 | 0.20 | 0.17 | -0.01 | 0.18 | −0.01 | -0.15 | 0.17 | −0.10 |
| Change in child disengagement | 0.04 | 0.23 | 0.02 | -0.19 | 0.20 | −0.11 | -0.23 | 0.18 | −0.13 |
| Child-object engagement | 0.18 | 0.14 | 0.17 | -0.02 | 0.13 | −0.02 | 0.26 | 0.13 | −0.24 |
| Change in mother positive engagement | -0.94 | 1.25 | −0.50 | -0.51 | 1.14 | −0.27 | |||
| Change in child positive engagement | -0.94 | 0.20 | −0.56 | -0.45 | 0.22 | −0.29 | |||
| Change in mother-child dyadic synchrony | -0.93 | 0.26 | −0.54 | ||||||
| 0.05 | 0.31 | 0.43 | |||||||
| 0.63 | 4.01 | 5.85 | |||||||
| 0.05 | 0.26 | 0.12 | |||||||
| 0.63 | 11.90 | 13.22 | |||||||
p < 0.05;
p < 0.01.
Model fits for different algorithms and variable importance rankings.
| LASSO | 0.59 | 0.63 | Completion level | Mother negative engagement | DC score (T1) | GSES score (T1) | Dyadic emotion engagement (T1) |
| SVM | 0.75 | 0.59 | Completion level | Dyadic emotion engagement (T1) | Change in dyadic emotion engagement | DC score (T1) | Child positive engagement (T1) |
| RR | 0.53 | 0.70 | Completion level | DC score (T1) | PD score (T1) | Dyadic emotion engagement (T1) | Change in adaptive behavior DQ |
| RF | 0.61 | 0.57 | Completion level | Change in adaptive behavior DQ | Satisfaction | Child positive engagement (T1) | PSI score (T1) |
LASSO, LASSO regression; SVM, support vector machine; RR, ridge regression; RF, random forest; PD and DC, the subscales of the Parenting Stress Index Short Form.