Leveraging telehealth to evaluate infants with prodromal autism spectrum disorder characteristics using the telehealth evaluation of development for infants

Abstract

This study investigated the feasibility of recruiting and assessing infants with prodromal autism characteristics in the first year of life via telehealth. Participants included 41 infants (Mage = 10.51 months, 51.2% female, 80.5% White) whose parents had concerns about social communication delays or autism. All infants met concerns criteria on a social communication screener. Infants were subsequently assessed via telehealth using the Telehealth Evaluation of Development for Infants protocol, wherein parents are coached through a series of semi-structured interactions from which key measures of autism characteristics, communication, developmental level, and clinical best estimates of autism spectrum disorder likelihood are scored. Parents completed online questionnaires and surveys measuring the acceptability of the telehealth visits. Across both parent report and examiner-derived measures, infants demonstrated high scores on measures of purported autism traits, decreased communication skills, and delayed achievement of developmental milestones. Caregivers’ acceptability ratings were uniformly positive. Results highlight the potential for telehealth to expand the scope of studies of emerging autism beyond infant sibling designs and to increase families’ access to early evaluation services.

Lay abstract

Many families seeking early evaluations for autism spectrum disorder face long waitlists, must often travel to centers with appropriate expertise, and are frequently told by providers to “wait and see.” This results in significant stress for families and delayed supports to infants and their caregivers who could benefit. This study evaluated whether telehealth could be used to identify and evaluate infants with early autism spectrum disorder characteristics in the first year of life. In this study, we evaluated 41 infants via telehealth using a standard set of probes and scored behavior related to social communication, play, imitation, and other developmental domains. We found the majority of infants demonstrated elevated likelihood of autism spectrum disorder on both parent-reported questionnaires and examiner-rated behavior. Caregiver ratings of the overall utility of the protocol used in this study were high. Overall, this study demonstrates the feasibility for telehealth-based approaches to evaluate infants’ with elevated likelihood of autism spectrum disorder in the first year of life, which could help to improve families’ access to care and to expand our capacity to conduct studies evaluating possible intervention supports.

Keywords

autism spectrum disorders behavioral measurement infant technology telehealth

Despite the advances in early identification of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), routine screening and evaluation for infants with early ASD markers have not been widely implemented in existing service systems (Green et al., 2013; Koegel, et al., 2014; Rogers et al., 2014). One major barrier is the lack of efficacious universal behavioral screeners for infants younger than 12 months. Development of such tools is challenging given the protracted onset of behavioral characteristics over the first several years of life and the difficulty distinguishing ASD-relevant markers from developmental delays, other neurodevelopmental disorders, and some normative behaviors (e.g. repetitive motor actions) early in development (Hatch et al., 2021; Pierce et al., 2011). A second major barrier is that when parents recognize and raise concerns, there are typically long delays before children receive specialized evaluations and subsequent services (Zuckerman et al., 2015). These service gaps are even more pronounced for children from racial and ethnic minorities and families living in rural or low-resource communities (Antezana et al., 2017; Mandell et al., 2009; Stahmer et al., 2019). In the United States, autism-specific services usually require a documented diagnosis, leaving families of infants with early prodromal ASD characteristics with very few resources available to them for either evaluation or services. While there have been some promising initial findings from parent-mediated intervention studies, there remains a pressing need to conduct the prospective longitudinal studies and treatment trials needed to understand the developmental trajectories and outcomes of infants with early ASD characteristics and to develop and test efficacious interventions to support their development. We suggest that utilization of telehealth approaches can help to address these barriers by increasing families’ access to early evaluations when concerns arise, helping to prioritize clinic waitlists, and expanding the scope of early identification and treatment research beyond infant sibling designs by supporting the participation of more infants with prodromal characteristics and families from rural communities or for whom travel to a University site is a significant barrier. In the present research, we evaluated the feasibility of recruiting and evaluating infants with significant likelihood for ASD from a distance using a promising semi-structured protocol, the Telehealth Evaluation of Development for Infants (TEDI).

Early behavioral indicators of ASD

Decades of studies carefully following multiple cohorts of infant siblings of children with ASD, who have increased recurrence rates relative to the general population, have yielded critical insights into the timing of the onset patterns, stability of early symptoms, recurrence rates, and the range of developmental trajectories and outcomes within this population (Ozonoff & Iosif, 2019; Ozonoff et al., 2011; Zwaigenbaum et al., 2015). Significant differences at the group level begin to emerge around 12 months, with infants ultimately diagnosed with ASD showing differences in social attention, social communication, and object use compared to their non-diagnosed peers. Approximately half of infants siblings ultimately diagnosed with ASD by 36 months are identified by 18 months, with the other half not meeting behavioral criteria until 24 or 36 months (Ozonoff et al., 2015). Additional long-term follow-up of these cohorts has revealed a further subset of infants who do not meet diagnostic criteria until later in middle childhood (Ozonoff et al., 2018). The rigor with which these samples have been monitored since early infancy suggest behavioral markers are not “missed” in infancy, but rather that this heterogeneous and protracted onset period is a defining characteristic of this population. Another challenge to early identification of prodromal ASD is that many early behavioral features are non-specific and shared with other clinical groups. For example, infant siblings of children with ASD or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) themselves later diagnosed with either show overlapping trajectories in inattention and hyperactivity between 12 and 36 months (Miller et al., 2020). Repetitive motor movement is common in other conditions such as Fragile X and is also observed across typical development in early infancy (Baranek et al., 2005; Iverson & Thelen, 1999). These features may be one reason many existing universal screening measures for ASD tend to perform poorly as predictive tools in young infants and toddlers (Guthrie et al., 2019; Parikh et al., 2021; Robins, 2020).

Despite the heterogeneity in ASD emergence, there is evidence to suggest that early appearing ASD characteristics are clinically meaningful. Infants diagnosed by 14 months show a rapid developmental deceleration between 6 and 14 months compared to infants who are diagnosed after 14 months (Landa et al., 2013). In a prospective study of infant siblings, Zwaigenbaum and colleagues (2020) found that nearly 70% of infants’ diagnosed by 24 months had 12 month scores on the Autism Observation Scale for Infants (AOSI) above the cut-off, versus only 39.2% of infants whose initial diagnosis was made at 36 months. Sacrey and colleagues (Sacrey et al., 2016, 2020) found that parent concerns as early as 6 months of age differentiate infant siblings with later ASD outcomes from non-diagnosed peers and infants without a family history of ASD; parent concerns on a structured questionnaire completed at 9 months predicted outcome classification with 70% accuracy. This is consistent with the literature using retrospective parent reports which have reported that while the mean age of parent first concern is around 18 months, many parents report signs emerging in the first year (Chawarska et al., 2007; De Giacomo & Fombonne, 1998; Herlihy et al., 2015).

Screening for symptomatic infants

Several groups have now begun applying the insights gained from infant sibling studies to screen infants in community settings. Most of these screening studies have used standardized caregiver-completed questionnaires at 12-month pediatric visits, but others have used birth-record mailings or clinically referred samples (Baranek et al., 2015; Barbaro & Dissanayake, 2010; Pierce et al., 2011; Turner-Brown et al., 2013; Whitehouse et al., 2019; Wieckowski et al., 2021). Across these multiple studies, one consistent finding is that the number of infants picked up by the screenings and ultimately diagnosed with ASD is fairly low. For example, Turner-Brown and colleagues (2013) initially screened 1305 infants and ultimately identified 9 with ASD (from a subsample of 699 toddlers who completed follow-up screeners at age 3 years). More recent work suggests that repeated screenings may help to improve identification rates as more infants have behavioral features unfold over time. Wieckowski and colleagues (2021) initially screened 5784 infants and ultimately diagnosed 368 toddlers with ASD (6.4%). While caregiver-completed screeners are typically brief and relatively low-burden in terms of staffing and parent time, randomized controlled treatment trials relying on these ascertainment methods are ultimately restricted by geographic range or provider network size. Furthermore, there is evidence that many families identified via universal screening may not have been seeking or receptive to initiating intervention (Freuler et al., 2014). Many families decline evaluation and or treatment after a positive screen even after enrolling in treatment studies (Pierce et al., 2011; Rogers et al., 2014). Geographic distance from the intervention site is a barrier to participation for many families (Bradshaw et al., 2020; Hyde et al., 2020). Even highly motivated families actively seeking specialized evaluations for their young infants typically face long waitlists and often must travel to sites with appropriate expertise (Kanne & Bishop, 2021).

Expanding early assessment via telehealth

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the potential for telehealth to meet many of these challenges. The pandemic has facilitated a rapid shift to telehealth-based tools, including diagnostic assessments for ASD (for a review, see Berger et al., 2021). These tools have primarily focused on translation of existing diagnostic tools (e.g. the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule–Second Edition (ADOS-2); Lord et al., 2012) or novel diagnostic assessment for toddlers 12–36 months. Encouragingly, in recent years, there has been a steady increase in the use of telehealth within existing public early intervention service systems, supporting the feasibility of telehealth implementation in these settings (Cole et al., 2016, 2019). Previous work suggests that in general, telehealth delivery of parent-coaching and early intervention services is satisfactory to families (Rooks-Ellis et al., 2020; Vismara et al., 2018). While there has been a rapid deployment of telehealth within early intervention service systems, to date there are few, if any, reliable and valid measures for conducting ASD-specific screening or evaluations for infants—those 12 months and younger—via telehealth. Developing telehealth tools to meet these needs is imperative to realizing the full promise of telehealth for reaching into rural and underserved communities (Zwaigenbaum & Warren, 2021).

The present research

We have previously developed a systematic protocol for conducting behavioral assessments for infants via telehealth, the TEDI (Talbott et al., 2020). The TEDI utilizes a parent-coaching model to engage parents and infants in a specific set of semi-structured parent–child interactions. These semi-structured interactions provide the context for scoring specific examiner-rated measures and for further offline behavioral coding. A list of the specific activities and associated measures used in this study is summarized in Table 1. Additional activities that can be added for evaluations with older infants and toddlers but not used in the sessions here include snack, pretend play, and puzzles and construction toys. A copy of the TEDI protocol is available from the first author. Preliminary feasibility and acceptability of this approach are promising (Talbott et al., 2020). Here, we build on these initial findings in a larger cohort of infants with early social communication concerns, in order to address the following research questions:

RQ1. Can infants with significant ASD characteristics in the first year of life be identified outside the infant sibling context?

RQ2. What is the inter-rater and test–retest reliability of behavioral measures evaluated via telehealth?

RQ3. Are infants’ profiles consistent with the existing infant sibling literature?

RQ4. Are there associations between examiner-scored observational data and parent-report measures?

RQ5. Are telehealth procedures feasible and acceptable to families?

Table 1.

TEDI activities and scored measures.

Activity title	Description	Measures scored
1. Floor Play	3-Min unstructured parent–child interaction	ECI^a IT-CC AIMS^b
2. Where Did It Go?	Visual tracking and disengagement	AOSI IT-CC
3. Free Play #1	3-Min parent–child interaction; at tabletop with provided toys	AOSI ECI IT-CC
4. Peek-A-Boo	Tickles are prompted if child does not respond to peek-a-boo	AOSI IT-CC
5. Imitation	Modeled oral-motor and object actions, varying by age	AOSI IT-CC
6. Free Play #2	3-Min parent–child interaction; at tabletop with provided toys	AOSI ECI IT-CC
7. Singing a Song	Familiar song or non-object social routine, selected by caregiver (e.g. itsy-bitsy spider, head shoulder knees and toes)	IT-CC
8. Bubbles/Wind-up	3-Min semi-structured interaction; caregiver asked to pause to elicit requests	IT-CC
9. Novel Object	1-Min object exploration probe	IT-CC
10. Book	Caregiver selected book	IT-CC
11. I Can Move	Gross motor probes	AIMS
12. Floor Play #2	3-Min unstructured parent–child interaction	ECI IT-CC AIMS

AOSI: Autism Observation Scale for Infants.

The IT-CC (Infant-Toddler Curriculum Checklist) is scored throughout all activities, with additional probes as needed to complete, following the administration guidelines.

ECI: Early Communication Indicator.

AIMS: Alberta Infant Motor Scale; data coding and analysis for the ECI and AIMS is ongoing and not presented in the current analysis.

Method

Overview

This study utilizes data collected via telehealth from multiple cohorts of infants with early ASD symptoms. Study procedures for all cohorts were conducted under the approval of the Institutional Review Board at the University of California, Davis. Informed consent was obtained from all parents prior to data collection; parents received compensation for their time. Primary data collection components included online caregiver surveys and synchronous telehealth sessions with a study examiner, using the TEDI protocol to collect a series of specific parent–child interaction activities. Telehealth sessions were conducted by PhD-level examiners. Examiners were not blind to family history or parent concerns, as these were discussed during the course of the assessment and contributed to examiners’ overall clinical best estimate (CBE) rating of likelihood of ASD (described further below in the measures). While prior work has found no effects on examiner’s knowledge of family history of ASD on AOSI scores (Estes et al., 2015), our approach differs from prior infant sibling studies with AOSI examiners naïve to family history.

Participants

Forty-one infants aged 6–12 months whose parents had social communication or ASD concerns were recruited nationally across three cohorts. Cohort 1 (n = 11) was recruited via word-of-mouth and self-referral as part of an initial pilot study. Data from these infants have been presented previously (Talbott et al., 2020). This cohort participated in an initial intake and retest assessment. A subset of infants in Cohort 1 received a brief telehealth-based parent-coaching intervention as part of a single-subject case design following the initial and retest assessments. Analysis of the single-subjects design treatment study is underway (Dufek et al., 2020). Two additional cohorts were recruited nationally for this study. Recruitment involved postings on family-facing websites (e.g. UC Davis MIND Institute social media pages and child development organization recruitment pages) and sending the study webpage to early intervention agencies and other providers (e.g. state part C coordinators). Many families also self-referred through the study webpage or by contacting the Institute and/or laboratory. The first of these (Cohort 2; n = 10) participated in a single assessment visit. The final cohort (Cohort 3; n = 20) participated in an initial intake and retest assessment and is currently being followed longitudinally. Recruitment for this cohort is ongoing. Eligibility criteria for all cohorts included (1) infant age between 6 and 12 months at screening; (2) score in the concerns range on any domain of the Infant-Toddler Checklist (ITC) (Wetherby et al., 2008); (3) English as primary caregiver language; (4) access to a computer or mobile device in the home capable of running the telehealth session; (5) no significant medical (e.g. seizures and head injuries), motor, hearing, or auditory impairments that render the assessment developmentally inappropriate; (6) no known genetic syndromes associated with ASD (e.g. Fragile X); and (7) gestational age over 34 weeks. The last two criteria (i.e. possible or known genetic conditions and prematurity) were eliminated for Cohorts 2 and 3 in order to increase the generalizability of the results. Demographic characteristics of the full sample are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Participant demographics.

Demographics	Combined sample (N = 41)
Infant age at initial session (M, SD)	10.50, 2.10
Infant sex (n, % male)	20, 48.8%
Infant race/ethnicity (n, %)
White	33, 80.5%
Hispanic or Latino	3, 7.3%
Asian	4, 9.8%
More than one race	4, 9.8%
Infants with first degree family history of ASD (n, %)	10, 24.4%
Known genetic finding (n, %)^a	4, 12.9%
Parent education (n, %)^b
High school/GED/vocational	2, 4.9%
Some college	2, 4.9%
College degree	14, 34.1%
Graduate degree	20, 48.8%
Not reported	3, 7.3%

SD: standard deviation; ASD: autism spectrum disorder; GED: General Educational Development.

Diagnoses included DDX3X, microdeletion 16p12.2, MTHFR A1298C, and psedohypoaldosteronism type 1.

Parent education data are available for 38 families.

Procedure

Upon enrollment, we sent families links to online surveys and a small kit of toys needed for the assessment. These included blocks, a soft book, rattles, a small blanket, bubbles, and other similar items. A set of laminated cards contained in the kit provided information about each activity that would be conducted during the live telehealth session and some suggested scripts and prompts parents could use. These cards were not intended to support parents in conducting the telehealth session activities independently, but to provide a sense of the scope of the activities and interactions that would take place in the session. Prior pilot work indicated parents’ strong preference for these supportive materials, paired with live coaching during the session (Talbott et al., 2020). Sessions were conducted by PhD-level examiners (developmental and clinical psychologists) with significant experience evaluating infants and toddlers with ASD or at high likelihood of ASD. Examiners followed the manualized TEDI protocol for coaching parents through each activity and scored specific measures live during the session (detailed below in section “Measures”). The protocol is designed for sessions to last between 45 and 90 min, depending on the child’s age, abilities, and family needs. At the conclusion of all sessions, parents were asked to report whether the session was representative of their infants’ usual behavior. If a session was reported as not representative, the session would have been repeated. Caregivers were sent a satisfaction questionnaire following the initial visit or retest visit if a retest was completed.

Community involvement

Community partners were not involved in this study. We plan to develop a community advisory board to further refine this protocol for further testing in community-based settings.

Measures

Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Developmental Profile ITC

This 25-item checklist assesses 6- to 24-month-old infants’ language, communication, play skills, and parents’ concerns (Wetherby & Prizant, 2002). Parents completed the ITC during initial screening to determine study eligibility.

Ages and Stages Questionnaires–Third Edition

This caregiver-completed questionnaire measures development in five areas (gross motor, fine motor, communication, problem-solving, and personal-social) and a screening classification is provided for each domain: Typically Developing, Monitor, or Refer for Further Assessment. Parents completed the Ages and Stages Questionnaires–Third Edition (ASQ-3) online prior to the assessment (Squires & Bricker, 2006).

Ages and Stages Questionnaire: Social Emotional–Second Edition

This caregiver-completed questionnaire measures development across seven social-emotional domains (Squires et al., 2015). An overall social-emotional screening classification is provided: Typically Developing, Monitor, or Refer for Further Assessment. Parents completed the Ages and Stages Questionnaire: Social Emotional–Second Edition (ASQ: SE-2) online prior to the assessment.

Autism Parent Screen for Infants

The Autism Parent Screen for Infants (APSI) is a 26-item forced-choice parent-report questionnaire with content probing early pre-diagnostic behavioral symptoms including eye contact, social development, gestures, and emotion regulation (Sacrey et al., 2016). At 12 months, a cut-off score of 10 is associated with a relative risk ratio of 3.61 (Sacrey et al., 2018). The APSI was completed online prior to the assessment for Cohorts 2 and 3.

AOSI

The AOSI consists of semi-structured play and systematic presses that assess target behaviors including visual tracking and attention disengagement, coordination of eye gaze and action, imitation, affective responses, early social-communicative behaviors, behavioral reactivity, and sensory-motor development (Bryson et al., 2008). At 12 months, a cut-off score of “7” results in a relative risk ratio of 1.58 (Sacrey et al., 2018). The AOSI was scored by examiners during the telehealth session.

P-ESDM Infant-Toddler Curriculum Checklist

This tool consists of 136 criterion-based items organized into nine developmental domains: receptive understanding of gestures and words, expressive use of gestures and words, joint attention, social interaction, imitation, cognition, and play skills (Rogers et al., 2021). Items span the developmental range from 8 to 30 months and are scored from TEDI activity probes. The TEDI protocol provides guidance for administering specific items via telehealth. A previous study assessing toddlers with ASD reported face-to-face high month-to-month test–retest reliability (r = 0.90), and very high concurrent validity with a standardized developmental measure, the Mullen Scales of Early Learning (Mullen, 1995; r = 0.90, p < 0.001). Here, raw total scores across all domains were summed to create a final Infant-Toddler Curriculum Checklist (IT-CC) Total Score.

Telehealth Usability Questionnaire

The Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ) is a 21-item questionnaire designed to assess usability of telehealth applications across five domains: usefulness, ease of use, effectiveness, reliability, and satisfaction. Items are rated on a 1–7 Likert-type scale (Parmanto et al., 2016). It was completed by parents online following the telehealth assessment for Cohorts 2 and 3.

Examiner CBE ratings

After each assessment session, examiners complete a summary judgment of likelihood of ASD using all available data, including family history and parent concerns. Cohort 1 was done via consensus and represented any level of concern beyond “no concern.” Ratings for Cohorts 2 and 3 were made independently consisted of three likelihood categories: Low, Moderate, or High. Ratings included a confidence rating of that classification (1–5 scale). To evaluate consistency in examiner CBE ratings, a CBE by Confidence (Overall CBE) variable was created, with high scores indicating high risk and high certainty.

Results

Infants were on average 10.5 months (range = 6.83–15.0 months, chronological age) at first evaluation, with second sessions for Cohorts 1 and 3 repeated an average of 1.5 weeks apart (range = 5–41 days). No session was repeated due to lack of representativeness. Our primary analyses are based on data from the first visit across all three cohorts, unless otherwise specified.

Can infants with significant ASD characteristics in the first year of life be identified outside the infant sibling context?

In terms of developmental level, the majority of infants’ scores fell into the “Refer for Assessment” range on at least one domain of the ASQ-3 (29/41 infants, 70.7% of the sample) and the ASQ-SE2 (29/31 infants, 93.5% of the sample). Proportions of infants falling into the “Monitor” and “Further Assessment” ranges for each of the ASQ subdomains are described in Table 3.

Table 3.

Infants’ scores and referral classifications on primary measures.

Domain	Proportion of sample
ASQ-3 referral recommendation, by domain (n, %)
Communication
Further assessment	23, 56.1%
Monitor	12, 29.3%
Typically developing	6, 14.6%
Gross motor
Further assessment	10, 24.4%
Monitor	10, 24.4%
Typically developing	21, 51.2%
Fine motor
Further assessment	13, 31.7%
Monitor	7, 17.1%
Typically developing	21, 51.2%
Problem-solving
Further assessment	15, 36.6%
Monitor	10, 24.4%
Typically developing	16, 39.0%
Personal-social
Further assessment	17, 41.5%
Monitor	13, 31.7%
Typically developing	11, 26.8%
ASQ-SE 2 further assessment recommended (n, %)^a	29, 96.5%
AOSI^b
AOSI Total Score, time 1a (M, SD)	12.35 (4.98)
AOSI number markers (M, SD)	7.43 (2.61)
Infants’ above AOSI cut-off (%)	35, 85.36%
APSI^c
APSI Total Score, time 1a (M, SD)	21.00 (9.26)
Infants above APSI cut-off (%)	76.67%
CBE^c of high concerns (n, %)	20, 66.67%

ASQ: Ages and Stages Questionnaires; AOSI: Autism Observation Scale for Infants; APSI: Autism Parent Screen for Infants.

ASQ-SE2 data are available for Cohorts 1 and 3 (n = 31).

AOSI data are missing from one infant due to technical errors in the session.

APSI and CBE data are available from Cohorts 2 and 3 (n = 30).

Descriptively, AOSI Total Scores (time 1a; n = 40) were elevated (M = 12.35 and SD = 4.98) compared to the suggested cut-off risk score of 7 (Table 3). A chi-square test indicated a significant majority of infants’ scores were higher than the suggested cut-off point score of 7, χ² (1, N = 40) = 22.500, p < 0.001.

APSI Total Scores were also elevated (M = 21.00, SD = 9.26, N = 30). Because the APSI uses different suggested cut-offs for 6, 9, and 12 months, an APSI cut-off classification (under or over the cut-off) was determined for each infant based on their nearest age band, and a chi-square analysis was used to determine whether a significant proportion of infants scored above the cut-off, χ² (1, N = 30) = 8.533, p = 0.003. Mean scores and sample proportions are presented in Table 3.

Overall CBE ratings indicated significant likelihood for ASD for the majority of infants in Cohorts 2 and 3 (see Table 3). Of 30 infants, 20 (68%) were rated High Likelihood, 9 (30%) as Moderate Likelihood, and 1 as Low Likelihood. The mean examiner confidence rating was 3.57 (SD = 0.90), indicating neutral to slight confidence in the CBE rating given.

What is the inter-rater and test–retest reliability of behavioral measures obtained via telehealth?

Inter-rater reliability was ascertained by having a second examiner independently score the AOSI and IT-CC measures and make CBE ratings from session recordings. As we have previously reported inter-rater reliability for AOSI scores in Cohort 1 (Talbott et al., 2020), we conducted a separate set of inter-rater reliability analyses for this study using Cohort 2 (n = 10). Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) (two-way, random model, absolute consistency) indicated high inter-rater agreement for AOSI Total Scores (ICC = 0.94), AOSI Number of Markers (ICC = 0.89), and IT-CC Total Scores (ICC = 0.88) and poor inter-rater agreement for Overall CBE (ICC = 0.32). ICCs for individual IT-CC domains ranged from poor to excellent: Early Gestures 0.80, Speech 0.86, Communicative Gestures 0.83, Verbal Communication 0.86, Joint Attention 0.92, Dyadic Engagement 0.17, Imitation 0.48, Cognition 0.64, and Play 0.68.

Test–retest reliability was evaluated across visits 1a and 1b for AOSI (Cohorts 1 and 3, n = 30), IT-CC, and CBE (Cohort 3 only, n = 20). In terms of AOSI scores, Total Score was significantly correlated across visits (AOSI Total r = 0.459, p = 0.01 and AOSI Markers r = 0.245, p = 0.19). AOSI risk classification (above or below cut-off) was highly consistent, with 26/30 infants meeting the same classification criteria across the two visits. IT-CC Total Score was strongly correlated across sessions (r = 0.75, p < 0.001). Overall CBE ratings were not significantly correlated across sessions (r = 0.27, p = 0.24) (11/20 infants received the same rating across both visits). However, all but two infants were rated as moderate or high likelihood of ASD at least one visit, so these ratings may not represent clinically meaningful differences.

Are infants’ profiles consistent with the existing infant sibling literature?

To further situate these scores within the existing infant sibling literature, we compared the frequency of scores of 2 or 3 (indicating significant presence of that behavior) within our sample to the frequency reported within previously published infant sibling cohorts, at the item-level, for both the AOSI and APSI. The AOSI comparison sample consisted of 54 infant siblings with known ASD diagnostic outcomes assessed at 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 months as part of a prospective, longitudinal study (Zwaigenbaum et al., 2020). We used item-level scores reported at 9 months as it was closest to the mean age of our sample. The mean AOSI Total Score reported by Zwaigenbaum et al. (2020) at 9 months was 6.6 (SD = 3.6). The APSI comparison sample consisted of 9-month-old infant siblings with known ASD diagnostic outcomes at 36 months (n = 34; reported by Sacrey et al., 2020). For both measures, we utilized chi-square analyses to test whether the proportion of infants scoring 2 or more on a given item in the current sample differed from the proportion expected based on the previously reported data. Item-level data for the AOSI and the APSI are presented in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. Overall, there were several items in both measures with significantly higher rates of elevated scores within our sample. However, very few items received scores of 2 or higher for a majority of infants. Items that more than half the sample received a score of 2 or higher included social babbling and eye contact AOSI and failure to point, or use gestures on the APSI.

Table 4.

Proportion of infants scoring two or higher on individual AOSI items, current and comparison sample.

	AOSI item	% 2+ (Zwaigenbaum sample)	% 2+ (current sample)	χ² (df = 1, n = 40)	p
1	Visual tracking	2	12.50	22.500	<0.001*
2	Disengagement of attention	11	20.00	3.309	0.07
3	Orients to name	13	42.50	30.778	<0.001*
4	Differential response to facial emotion	–	–		–
5	Anticipatory responses	2	12.50	22.550	<0.001*
6	Imitation of actions	20	27.50	1.406	0.24
7	Social babbling	42	55.00	2.775	0.10
8	Eye contact	33	87.50	53.736	<0.001*
9	Reciprocal social smile	7	45.00	88.725	<0.001*
10	Coordination of eye gaze and action	0	–		–
11	Reactivity	4	7.50	1.276	0.26
14	Social interest and shared affect	0	–		–
15	Transitions	2	12.50	22.500	<0.001*
16	Motor control and behavior	2	7.50	6.173	0.01
17	Atypical motor behaviors	31	47.50	5.091	0.02
18	Atypical sensory behaviors	11	30.00	14.750	<0.001*
19	Engagement of attention^a	0	–		–
20	Insistence of having or playing with particular objects or specific activities^a	0	–		–
21	Sharing interest^a	16	41.03	18.173	<0.001*

AOSI: Autism Observation Scale for Infants; df: degree of freedom.

Starred items indicate those remaining significant after correction for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini and Hochberg (1995) procedure.

Item-level data available for 39 infants.

Table 5.

Proportion of infants scoring two or higher on individual APSI items, current and comparison sample.

	APSI item	% 2+ (Sacrey sample)	% 2+ (current sample)	χ² (df = 1, n = 30)	p
1	Difficulty visually tracking a moving object	6.5	0.0	–	–
2	Visual fixation, or stare, at certain objects	19.4	36.7	5.72	0.017
3	Fail to respond to name	32.3	46.7	2.832	0.092
4	React to changes in facial expression	19.4	30.0	2.156	0.014
5	Anticipate the pleasure of social games	0	–	–	–
6	Imitation of sounds or actions of others	30.0	40.0	1.429	0.23
7	Vocalize back-and-forth with you	12.9	40.0	19.609	<0.001*
8	Difficulty in establishing eye contact	12.9	40.0	19.609	<0.001*
9	Smile in response to your smiles	0	–	–	–
10	Coordinate actions with eye gaze	9.7	3.3	1.388	0.24
11	Tend to be over-reactive or under-reactive	19.4	26.7	1.013	0.31
12	Cuddle into your body when holding them	6.5	23.3	13.987	<0.001*
13	Difficult to soothe	3.2	6.7	1.164	0.28
14	Show sustained interest and pleasure in interacting	9.7	23.3	6.366	0.012
15	Have difficulty with change	3.2	6.7	1.164	0.28
16	Difficulty using hands/holding objects	6.5	23.3	13.987	<0.001*
17	Unusual repetitive motor behaviors	16.1	40.0	12.686	<0.001*
18	Use another person’s hand as a tool	0	–	–	–
19	Have unusual sensory behaviors	6.5	3.3	0.495	0.48
20	Difficulty focusing attention on objects	6.5	13.3	2.305	0.13
21	Insist on holding/playing with certain toys	0	–	–	–
22	Resist others joining in play/have fixed play routines	0	–	–	–
23	Share interests in object/event with others	16.1	43.3	16.472	<0.001*
24	Point to objects/event at a distance	80.0	86.7	0.833	0.36
25	Use gestures	71.0	66.7	0.274	0.60
26	Loss of skill over past 2–3 months	3.2	16.7	17.564	<0.001*

APSI: Autism Parent Screen for Infants.

Bolded items represent the items that distinguished HR-ASD from HR-N in the Sacrey et al. (2020) sample.

Starred items indicate those remaining significant after correction for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini and Hochberg (1995) procedure.

Are there associations between examiner-scored observational data and parent-report measures?

We examined associations between examiner-rated AOSI Total Score and parent-rated APSI Total Scores using Pearson’s zero-order correlations, which indicated a significant and strong positive association between these measures (r = 0.464, p = 0.010, n = 30).

Are telehealth procedures feasible and acceptable to families?

We have previously reported positive findings for feasibility benchmarks and parent acceptability in Cohort 1 (Talbott et al., 2020). We utilized an expanded satisfaction questionnaire Cohorts 2 and 3 (n = 30) to evaluate five specific dimensions of acceptability: Usefulness, Ease of Use, Effectiveness, Reliability, and Satisfaction. A one-sample Wilcoxon’s signed-rank test comparing mean ratings to a neutral rating indicates significant overall parent satisfaction with the TEDI (TUQ Total Mean Score: Z = 465, p < 0.001) as well as on each of the subdomains (all ps ⩽ 0.001, remaining significant after correction for multiple comparisons). Mean scores are presented in Table 6. Anecdotally, parents’ responses to open-ended requests for feedback were overwhelmingly positive and highlighted the convenience of having materials sent, their child feeling comfortable in a familiar environment, and feeling supported and engaged with the examiners.

Table 6.

Mean scores on parent-reported Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ).

TUQ domain	Mean (SD)
Usefulness	5.96 (0.70)
Ease of Use	6.40 (0.69)
Effectiveness	6.22 (0.66)
Reliability	4.95 (0.89)
Satisfaction	6.37 (0.57)
TUQ Total Mean Score	6.06 (0.56)

SD: standard deviation.

Discussion

In this study, we demonstrated the initial feasibility of conducting an informative developmental assessment via telehealth and identifying infants with significant symptoms of ASD in the first year of life. This approach was acceptable to families, and demonstrated reasonable inter-rater and test–retest reliability, supporting its potential use as a tool for developmental monitoring and early identification in community settings. The behavioral profiles we observed in this preliminary sample mirror those previously reported in the infant sibling literature among infants ultimately diagnosed with ASD, suggesting the behavioral indicators of ASD identified via prospective infant sibling studies may be generalizable to infants recruited more broadly. Following the current cohorts of infants into toddlerhood and determining diagnostic outcomes will help to clarify which, if any, early behavioral characteristics are particularly strong indicators of subsequent ASD outcomes. Notably, a significantly higher proportion of infants in our sample demonstrated elevated scores (i.e. scores of 2 or higher) on both examiner and parent behavior ratings compared to previous infant sibling cohorts with known ASD outcomes. This suggests the infants in our sample represent infants with the earliest-appearing behavioral differences, versus infants whose ASD traits unfold in the second or third years of life. However, given the preliminary nature of the current sample, these results will need to be replicated in a larger cohort. Another important finding was the lack of consensus around a core set of behavioral characteristics. Very few individual behavioral domains were elevated in more than 50% of the sample. Again, this is consistent with the existing infant sibling literature which has not been able to identify robust universal early behavioral markers in the first year of life. Instead, these findings add to the literature suggesting early concerns reflect a broad array of behavioral differences which may be shared among infants with ASD, developmental delays, or other neurodevelopmental conditions.

Although somewhat lower that the initial AOSI 2 week test–retest reliability of 0.61 for 12-month-olds reported by Bryson and colleagues (2008), the modest correlations for the behavioral measures across testing sessions and between caregiver and examiner ratings observed in this study is consistent with some recent findings. Hudry and colleagues (2021) examined inter-rater and test–retest reliability in AOSI total scores and number of markers across a 6-month interval in a sample of community-ascertained infants participating in a treatment trial. They reported a correlation of 0.44 for AOSI total scores across the two timepoints. Likewise, Sacrey and colleagues (2018b) reported poor agreement between parent and clinician item-level ratings at 12 and 18 months. Given the increased variability telehealth administration introduces in terms of setting, interactive partner, and audiovisual quality, the test–retest reliability observed in this study across multiple measures is a positive finding and supports the use of telehealth-based assessments in future investigations. Anecdotally, when asked about the representativeness of the session, many parents noted subtle differences in their child’s behavior across the two sessions, despite endorsing the overall session as representative of their child’s behavior. These observations were often new skills (“he’s never imitated me before today!” and temperamental differences related to sleep or hunger states). On occasion, objects or situations elicited low-frequency but highly relevant behaviors (e.g. visual examination of laundry basket, caregiver report of excessive interest in cylinder-shaped toys) that likely contributed to examiners’ summary ratings. These differences may have contributed to the low agreement in CBE ratings across sessions. Together, the modest stability in scores and variability in specific items underscore the need for multiple assessments and routine developmental surveillance, as has been previously articulated (Hudry et al., 2021; Wieckowski et al., 2021).

There are several limitations to this study that should be acknowledged. First, this was a convenience sample, consisting of parents who were recruited directly into the study via online recruitment, by word-of-mouth, or self-referral. Participants were predominantly Caucasian and of high socio-economic status, limiting the conclusions we can draw regarding generalizability and feasibility more broadly. Furthermore, examiners were highly trained with expertise in early ASD identification and future work is needed to evaluate whether these procedures could be carried out in a community setting. There are clear disparities in access to autism research and clinical services for families of color and those living in rural and under-resourced communities (Mandell et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2020; Stahmer et al., 2019). Telehealth-based services can help to increase access for many families, but may also add new barriers including costs associated with needed equipment and data usage, the shortage of high-speed Internet in many rural communities, and increased burden on parents to conduct components of the evaluation. We hope to address this in future work by utilizing community-based participatory research models, partnering with stakeholders to conduct further adaptations to ensure the TEDI protocol will address families’ needs and fit within existing services systems. Another limitation to this study is the absence of longitudinal or outcome data, which limits our ability to examine differences in behavioral profiles among infants who are later diagnosed. Our next steps include following the current sample over time to better understand their developmental trajectories and clinical outcomes. We anticipate that infants in this sample will have a range of developmental and diagnostic outcomes that are likely to include, but not be limited to ASD. As we and others have suggested previously, development of intervention approaches that appropriately meet the needs of infants with early ASD-relevant traits do not necessarily need to be ASD-specific or delayed until a diagnostic determination can be made (Constantino et al., 2021; Talbott & Miller, 2020). Demonstration that specific intervention approaches support developmental progress across infants with shared behavioral profiles during a non-specific pre-diagnostic period would significantly improve families’ access to supportive services.

Much of the existing literature on early behavioral screening for ASD has focused on universal screening using caregiver-completed checklists, typically administered in primary care settings. Several studies using community-based ascertainment based on such universal screeners have reported follow-through from a positive screening (i.e. screening indicating elevated likelihood of ASD) to evaluation or intervention to be quite low (Monteiro et al., 2019; Pierce et al., 2011; Turner-Brown et al., 2013; Wieckowski et al., 2021). This may reflect discrepancies between screening classification and provider or parent concerns, low rate of provider referral, barriers for families to attend evaluations, and/or family preference. Here, we consider an alternative approach, focusing on infants whose parents have expressed concerns about their development in order to better understand the behavioral profiles and clinical significance of these potential prodromal characteristics. Given the negative impact of unmet service needs and a protracted “diagnostic odyssey” on caregiver stress, we contend that in addition to better understanding the early development of infants with early ASD characteristics, this approach addresses a critical need in terms of infant mental health and overall family functioning (Zwaigenbaum et al., 2015). We hope to address this aspect in future analyses examining caregiver-reports of early concerns and mental health correlates, families’ involvement in existing early intervention services, and the potential for telehealth-based early evaluations to support families during this period of diagnostic uncertainty. It is our hope that telehealth-based approaches like the one we have presented here will provide new opportunities to expand studies of early development into community-based settings, to support future high-quality randomized controlled trials of supportive interventions, and ultimately, to increase families’ access to early specialized evaluations and services.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the families who have generously given their time to participate in this research, and to Jennica Li and Soo Park for their assistance with data collection and processing.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors of this manuscript are authors on the TEDI protocol described in this project, available at no cost from the first author. Dr. Rogers receives royalties from Guilford for various published works related to the ESDM including the infant-toddler curriculum checklist.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at UC Davis Medical Center (PI: S.D.), The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R21 HD100372, PI: M.R.T.; U54 HD079125 and P50 HD103526, MIND IDDRC PI: Abbeduto), and The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and National Institutes of Health (UL1 TR00000; UL1 TR001860; KL2 TR001859). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

ORCID iD

Meagan R Talbott

Data availability

Data for this project collected under grant R21 HD100372 are available from the NIMH data archive .

References

Antezana

Scarpa

Valdespino

Albright

Richey

J. A.

(2017). Rural trends in diagnosis and services for autism spectrum disorder. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 590. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00590

Baranek

G. T.

Danko

C. D.

Skinner

M. L.

Bailey

D. B.

Jr. Hatton

D. D.

. . . Mirrett

P. L.

(2005). Video analysis of sensory-motor features in infants with fragile X syndrome at 9–12 months of age. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35, 645–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-005-0008-7

Baranek

G. T.

Watson

L. R.

Turner-brown

Field

S. H.

Crais

E. R.

Wakeford

. . . Reznick

J. S.

(2015). Preliminary efficacy of adapted responsive teaching for infants at risk of autism spectrum disorder in a community sample. Autism Research and Treatment, 2015, Article 386951.

Barbaro

Dissanayake

(2010). Prospective identification of autism spectrum disorders in infancy and toddlerhood using developmental surveillance: The social attention and communication study. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 31, 376–385. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0b013e3181df7f3c

Benjamini

Hochberg

(1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 57, 289–300.

Berger

N. I.

Wainer

A. L.

Kuhn

Bearss

Attar

Carter

A. S.

. . . Stone

W. L.

(2021). Characterizing available tools for synchronous virtual assessment of toddlers with suspected autism spectrum disorder: A brief report. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-04911-2

Bradshaw

Trumbull

Stapel-Wax

Gillespie

George

Saulnier

. . . Wetherby

(2020). Factors associated with enrollment into a clinical trial of caregiver-implemented intervention for infants at risk for autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 24, 1874–1884. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320928829

Bryson

S. E.

Zwaigenbaum

McDermott

Rombough

Brian

(2008). The autism observation scale for infants: Scale development and reliability data. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 731–738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-007-0440-y

Chawarska

Paul

Klin

Hannigen

Dichtel

L. E.

Volkmar

(2007). Parental recognition of developmental problems in toddlers with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0330-8

10.

Cole

Pickard

Stredler-Brown

(2019). Report on the use of telehealth in early intervention in Colorado: Strengths and challenges with telehealth as a service delivery method. International Journal of Telerehabilitation, 11, 33–40. https://doi.org/10.5195/ijt.2019.6273

11.

Cole

Stredler-Brown

Cohill

Blaiser

Behl

Ringwalt

(2016). The development of statewide policies and procedures to implement telehealth for Part C service delivery. International Journal of Telerehabilitation, 8, 77–82. https://doi.org/10.5195/ijt.2016.6206

12.

Constantino

J. N.

Charman

Jones

(2021). Clinical and translational implications of an emerging developmental substructure for autism. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 17, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-110503

13.

De Giacomo

Fombonne

(1998). Parental recognition of developmental abnormalities in autism. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 7, 131–136.

14.

Dufek

Talbott

M. R.

Rogers

S. J.

(2020). Telebaby: A telehealth intervention for caregivers of infants with early signs of autism spectrum disorder. Meeting of the International Society for Autism Research. ePoster.

15.

Estes

Zwaigenbaum

St John

Paterson

Elison

J. T.

. . . Piven

(2015). Behavioral, cognitive, and adaptive development in infants with autism spectrum disorder in the first 2 years of life. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 7, Article 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11689-015-9117-6

16.

Freuler

A. C.

Baranek

G. T.

Tashjian

Watson

L. R.

Crais

E. R.

Turner-Brown

L. M.

(2014). Parent reflections of experiences of participating in a randomized controlled trial of a behavioral intervention for infants at risk of autism spectrum disorders. Autism, 18, 519–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361313483928

17.

Green

Wan

M. W.

Guiraud

Holsgrove

McNally

Slonims

Elsabbagh

Charman

Pickles

Johnson

& The BASIS Team. (2013). Intervention for infants at risk of developing autism: A case series. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 2502–2514.

18.

Guthrie

Wallis

Bennett

Brooks

Dudley

Gerdes

. . . Miller

J. S.

(2019). Accuracy of autism screening in a large pediatric network. Pediatrics, 144, Article e20183963. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-3963

19.

Hatch

Iosif

A. M.

Chuang

de la Paz

Ozonoff

Miller

(2021). Longitudinal differences in response to name among infants developing ASD and risk for ADHD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51, 827–836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04369-8

20.

Herlihy

Knoch

Vibert

Fein

(2015). Parents’ first concerns about toddlers with autism spectrum disorder: Effect of sibling status. Autism, 19, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361313509731

21.

Hudry

Chetcuti

Boutrus

Pillar

Baker

E. K.

Dimov

. . . Varcin

K. J.

(2021). Performance of the Autism Observation Scale for Infants with community-ascertained infants showing early signs of autism. Autism, 25, 490–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320965397

22.

Hyde

Pizzano

Mcdonald

N. M.

Iii

C. A. N.

Kasari

Thiele

E. A.

Jeste

S. S.

(2020). A telehealth approach to improving clinical trial access for infants with tuberous sclerosis complex. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 12, Article 3.

23.

Iverson

J. M.

Thelen

(1999). Hand, mouth and brain: The dynamic emergence of speech and gesture. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6, 19–40. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2000-13894-002&site=ehost-live&scope=site

24.

Kanne

S. M.

Bishop

S. L.

(2021). Editorial Perspective: The autism waitlist crisis and remembering what families need. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 62, 140–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13254

25.

Koegel

L. K.

Singh

A. K.

Koegel

R. L.

Hollingsworth

J. R.

Bradshaw

(2014). Assessing and improving early social engagement in infants. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16, 69–80.

26.

Landa

R. J.

Stuart

E. A.

Gross

A. G.

Faherty

(2013). Developmental trajectories in children with and without autism spectrum disorders: The first 3 years. Child Development, 84, 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01870.x

27.

Lord

Rutter

DiLavore

P. C.

Risi

Gotham

Bishop

S. L.

(2012). Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, 2nd edition (ADOS-2) manual (Part 1): Modules 1-4. Western Psychological Services.

28.

Mandell

D. S.

Wiggins

L. D.

Carpenter

L. A.

Daniels

DiGuiseppi

Durkin

M. S.

. . . Kirby

R. S.

(2009). Racial/ethnic disparities in the identification of children with autism spectrum disorders. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 493–498. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.131243

29.

Miller

Austin

Iosif

A.-M.

de la Paz

Chaung

Hatch

Ozonoff

(2020). Shared and distinct developmental pathways to ASD and ADHD phenotypes among infants at familial risk. Development and Psychopathology, 32, 1323–1334.

30.

Monteiro

S. A.

Dempsey

Berry

L. N.

Voigt

R. G.

Goin-Kochel

R. P.

(2019). Screening and referral practices for autism spectrum disorder in primary pediatric care. Pediatrics, 144, Article e20183326. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-3326

31.

Mullen

E. M.

(1995). The Mullen Scales of Early Learning: AGS edition manual. AGS.

32.

Ozonoff

Iosif

A.-M.

(2019). Changing conceptualizations of regression: What prospective studies reveal about the onset of autism spectrum disorder. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 100, 296–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.03.012

33.

Ozonoff

Young

G. S.

Brian

Charman

Shephard

Solish

Zwaigenbaum

(2018). Diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder after age 5 in children evaluated longitudinally since infancy. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 57, 849–857.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2018.06.022

34.

Ozonoff

Young

G. S.

Carter

Messinger

Yirmiya

Zwaigenbaum

. . . Stone

W. L.

(2011). Recurrence risk for autism spectrum disorders: A baby siblings research consortium study. Pediatrics, 128, e488–e495. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-2825

35.

Ozonoff

Young

G. S.

Landa

R. J.

Brian

Bryson

Charman

. . . Iosif

A.-M.

(2015). Diagnostic stability in young children at risk for autism spectrum disorder: A baby siblings research consortium study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56, 988–998. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12421

36.

Parikh

Iosif

A. M.

Ozonoff

(2021). Brief Report: Use of the Infant–Toddler Checklist in Infant Siblings of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51, 1007–1012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04468-6

37.

Parmanto

Lewis

A. N.

Jr. Graham

K. M.

Bertolet

M. H.

(2016). Development of the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ). International Journal of Telerehabilitation, 8, 3–10. https://doi.org/10.5195/IJT.2016.6196

38.

Pierce

Carter

Weinfeld

Desmond

Hazin

Bjork

Gallagher

(2011). Detecting, studying, and treating autism early: The one-year well-baby check-up approach. Journal of Pediatrics, 159, 458–465.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.02.036

39.

Robins

D. L.

(2020). How do we determine the utility of screening tools? Autism, 24, 271–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361319894170

40.

Rogers

S. J.

Dawson

Vismara

(2021). Coaching parents of young children with Autism: Promoting connection, communication, and learning. Guilford Press.

41.

Rogers

S. J.

Vismara

L. A.

Wagner

A. L.

McCormick

Young

Ozonoff

(2014). Autism treatment in the first year of life: A pilot study of infant start, a parent-implemented intervention for symptomatic infants. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44, 2981–2995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2202-y

42.

Rooks-Ellis

D. L.

Howorth

S. K.

Boulette

Kunze

Sulinski

(2020). Effects of a parent training using telehealth: Equity and access to early intervention for rural families. Journal of Childhood, Education, and Society, 1, 141–166. https://doi.org/10.37291/2717638X.20201242

43.

Sacrey

L.-A. R.

Bryson

Zwaigenbaum

Brian

Smith

I. M.

Roberts

. . . Roncadin

(2016). The autism parent screen for infants: Predicting risk of autism spectrum disorder based on parent-reported behavior observed at 6–24 months of age. Autism. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361316675120

44.

Sacrey

L.-A. R.

Zwaigenbaum

Bryson

Brian

Smith

I. M.

Roberts

. . . Garon

(2018). The autism parent screen for infants: Predicting risk of autism spectrum disorder based on parent-reported behavior observed at 6–24 months of age. Autism, 22(3), 322–334.

45.

Sacrey

L. A. R.

Zwaigenbaum

Bryson

Brian

Smith

I. M.

Roberts

. . . Garon

(2020). Screening for behavioral signs of autism spectrum disorder in 9-month-old infant siblings. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51, 839–848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04371-0

46.

Smith

K. A.

Gehricke

J. G.

Iadarola

Wolfe

Kuhlthau

K. A.

(2020). Disparities in service use among children with autism: A systematic review. Pediatrics, 145, S35–S46. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-1895G

47.

Squires

Bricker

(2006). The Ages and Stages Questionnaire (3rd ed.). Brookes Publishing.

48.

Squires

Bricker

Twombly

(2015). The Ages and Stages Questionnaire: Social-emotional (2nd ed.). Brookes Publishing.

49.

Stahmer

A. C.

Vejnoska

Iadarola

Straiton

Segovia

F. R.

Luelmo

. . . Kasari

(2019). Caregiver voices: Cross-cultural input on improving access to autism services. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 6, 752–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-019-00575-y

50.

Talbott

M. R.

Dufek

Zwaigenbaum

Bryson

Brian

Smith

I. M.

Rogers

S. J.

(2020). Brief Report: Preliminary feasibility of the TEDI: A novel parent-administered telehealth assessment for autism spectrum disorder symptoms in the first year of life. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50, 3432–3439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-04314-4

51.

Talbott

M. R.

Miller

M. R.

(2020). Future directions for infant identification and intervention for autism spectrum disorder from a transdiagnostic perspective. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 49, 688–700. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2020.1790382

52.

Turner-Brown

L. M.

Baranek

G. T.

Reznick

J. S.

Watson

L. R.

Crais

E. R.

(2013). The First Year Inventory: A longitudinal follow-up of 12-month-old to 3-year-old children. Autism, 24(5), 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361312439633

53.

Turner-Brown

L. M.

Baranek

G. T.

Reznick

J. S.

Watson

L. R.

Crais

E. R.

(2013). The First Year Inventory: A longitudinal follow-up of 12-month-old to 3-year-old children. Autism, 17, 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361312439633

54.

Vismara

L. A.

McCormick

C. E. B.

Wagner

A. L.

Monlux

Nadhan

Young

G. S.

(2018). Telehealth parent training in the early start Denver model: Results from a randomized controlled study. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 33, 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357616651064

55.

Wetherby

A. M.

Prizant

(2002). Communication and symbolic behavior scales (1st ed.). Paul H. Brookes.

56.

Wetherby

A. M.

Brosnan-Maddox

Peace

Newton

(2008). Validation of the Infant-Toddler Checklist as a broadband screener for autism spectrum disorders from 9 to 24 months of age. Autism, 12, 487–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361308094501

57.

Whitehouse

A. J. O.

Varcin

K. J.

Alvares

G. A.

Barbaro

Bent

Boutrus

. . . Hudry

(2019). Pre-emptive intervention versus treatment as usual for infants showing early behavioural risk signs of autism spectrum disorder: A single-blind, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 3, 605–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2352-4642(19)30184-1

58.

Wieckowski

A. T.

Hamner

Nanovic

Porto

K. S.

Coulter

K. L.

Eldeeb

. . . Robins

(2021). Early and repeated screening detects autism spectrum disorder. The Journal of Pediatrics, 234, 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.03.009

59.

Zuckerman

K. E.

Lindly

O. J.

Sinche

B. K.

(2015). Parental concerns, provider response, and timeliness of autism spectrum disorder diagnosis. Journal of Pediatrics, 166, 1431–1439.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2015.03.007

60.

Zwaigenbaum

Bauman

M. L.

Stone

W. L.

Yirmiya

Estes

Hansen

R. L.

. . . Wetherby

(2015). Early Identification of Autism Spectrum Disorder: Recommendations for Practice and Research. Pediatrics, 136, S10–S40. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-3667C

61.

Zwaigenbaum

Bryson

S. E.

Brian

Smith

I. M.

Sacrey

Armstrong

. . . Roncadin

(2021). Assessment of autism symptoms from 6 to 18 months of age using the Autism Observational Scale for Infants in a Prospective High-Risk Cohort. Child Development, 92, 1187–1198. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13485

62.

Zwaigenbaum

Warren

(2021). Commentary: Embracing innovation is necessary to improve assessment and care for individuals with ASD: A reflection on Kanne and Bishop (2020). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 62, 143–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13271