Scoping review of behavioral coding measures used to evaluate parent responsiveness of children with autism or elevated risk of autism

Abstract

Various aspects of parent responsiveness are associated with child outcomes, such as play, language, and social development. However, behavioral coding methods used to measure parent responsiveness vary widely, making comparison of results across studies difficult. The purpose of this scoping review was to summarize current behavioral coding methods used in measuring parent responsiveness to children with autism or elevated likelihood of autism, synthesize the reported metrics used, and highlight the strengths and weaknesses in the reporting standards of available literature. A total of 101 articles met criteria for the review and were analyzed for metrics in demographics, coding system development and accessibility, characteristics of measured responsiveness, reliability, and validity. Results revealed variations in observational procedures, forms of measurement, and specific aspects of responsiveness measured. Details necessary for study replication or extension often were missing, such as parent demographics, clear definitions of parent responsiveness, and coder training procedures. The scoping review results reflect the wide variety of behavioral coding systems used and the inconsistent reporting in published literature on this topic. A case for a best practice model for behavioral coding metrics and reporting standards within parent responsiveness is presented in the discussion.

Lay abstract

The topic of how parents react (e.g., how they talk and act) to their child with autism or elevated likelihood of autism, often called parent responsiveness, has been studied by researchers for over 50 years. Many methods for measuring behaviors around parent responsiveness have been created depending on what researchers were interested in discovering. For example, some include only the behaviors that the parent does/says in reacting to something the child does/says. Other systems look at all behaviors in a period of time between child and parent (e.g., who talked/acted first, how much the child or parent said/did). The purpose of this article was to provide a summary of how and what researchers looked at around parent responsiveness, describe the strengths and barriers of these approaches, and suggest a “best practices” method of looking at parent responsiveness. The model suggested could make it more possible to look across studies to compare study methods and results. The model could be used in the future by researchers, clinicians, and policymakers to provide more effective services to children and their families.

Keywords

autism spectrum disorders observational coding parent responsiveness

Parent–child engagement is a complex interactive process, which makes measuring the qualities present in the dyadic interaction difficult to achieve (Fogel, 2009). A common method used to address this complexity is direct observation using behavioral coding measures (Aspland & Gardner, 2003). Behavioral coding measures involve the use of a coding system to identify specific behaviors based on the construct being measured (Bakeman & Gottman, 1997). Various coding tools have been developed to measure a variety of constructs within parent–child engagement, such as joint engagement (Adamson et al., 2014), parent responsiveness (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2001), and infant responsiveness (Van Egeren et al., 2001). The primary focus of this scoping review is parent responsiveness.

Many derivatives of parent responsive constructs are found in literature, such as synchrony (Feldman, 2007), direct responsiveness (Landry et al., 2006; Mahoney & Perales, 2003), and mutuality (Deater-Deckerd & O’Connor, 2000). Similarly, varied treatment constructs, such as parent coaching (Kasari et al., 2014; Siller et al., 2018), family behavior management (McConachie et al., 2005; Poslawsky et al., 2015), and parent-mediated interventions (Shire et al., 2016; Siller et al., 2013; Watson et al., 2017), are also identified in parent responsiveness literature. Here, we define parent responsiveness as the act of a parent responding to a child’s behavior (e.g., maternal verbal responsiveness or turning to look at child) or the act of a parent’s overall behavior being attuned to their child in some aspect (e.g., parent’s responsiveness is attuned to their child’s overall developmental level; Mahoney & Perales, 2003). Examples of responsive behavior include follow-in directives or comments made by caregivers where their response corresponds to the child’s focus of attention. Follow-in directives refer to caregiver responses where there is the expectation of a response from the child, whereas follow-in comments refer to caregiver responses that describe the child’s focus of attention without an expectation for a child response (Haebig et al., 2013b).

Parent responsiveness has been shown to influence children’s development, suggesting the importance of fully understanding and appropriately measuring the construct. For example, parents’ responses to a child’s attentional focus and communication acts have been shown to be related to communication and language development of young children without clinical concerns. Adamson and Bakeman (1984) demonstrated that information presented in a responsive environment resulted in increased comprehension and vocabulary development for the children involved. References made within episodes where parents are attuned and responding to the child’s focus are shown to correlate with vocabulary growth compared to information presented outside of the shared focus (Tomasello & Farrar, 1986). Dunham et al. (1993) reported higher comprehension of novel words when parents followed the attentional focus of the child.

The importance of parent responsiveness is also observed in children with autism. More frequent parent responsiveness, both to child’s attentional focus and communication acts, is related to increased spoken vocabulary in this population (McDuffie & Yoder, 2010; Siller & Sigman, 2008), with both fathers and mothers (Flippin & Watson, 2015). The use of both follow-in directives and comments is shown to predict later comprehension and production abilities of children with autism (Haebig et al., 2013a, 2013b). In addition, Flippin and Watson (2011) noted higher parent responsiveness with more complex play.

Although parent responsiveness is found to be important for social-communicative development, children with autism may be delayed in developing skills that help to elicit parent responsiveness. For instance, a key area of difficulty for children with autism is joint attention (Adamson et al., 2009; Watson et al., 2013), which allows the child to indicate their focus of attention to the parent. Limited joint attention behaviors may make it more difficult for parents to recognize the child’s focus and respond accordingly (Kinard et al., 2017). Several interventions targeting responsiveness of parents of children with autism, or parents of infants and toddlers at elevated likelihood of an autism diagnosis, have shown efficacy in increasing parent responsiveness (Green et al., 2010; Ingersoll & Wainer, 2013; Siller et al., 2013; Venker et al., 2012; Watson et al., 2017). Examples of these interventions include Focused Playtime Intervention (Siller et al., 2013), Responsive Teaching (Mahoney & Perales, 2003), Adapted Responsive Teaching (Watson et al., 2017), and Project ImPACT (Ingersoll & Wainer, 2013).

Forms of measurement

Coding systems can generally be designed as discrete, global, or both (Aspland & Gardner, 2003; Bell & Bell, 1989; Gardner, 2000; Lotzin et al., 2015), where each quantifies different levels of information about an individual in the dyad and/or the dyad as a whole (Mesman, 2010). Measures of discrete variables are used to assess distinct behaviors present in the interaction (Gardner, 2000; Lotzin et al., 2015) and could include characteristics, such as eye contact (Vernon, 2014), physical touch (Chorney et al., 2010), and verbal responsiveness (Leezenbaum et al., 2014). These behaviors can be identified continuously (e.g., indicating each time a particular behavior occurs) or within intervals (e.g., coding whether the behavior of interest occurred at any time within each identified interval of an observation; Aspland & Gardner, 2003; Bell & Bell, 1989). Examples of discrete measures include the Dyadic Parent–Child Interaction Coding System (DPICS-III; Eyberg et al., 2005), Free Play Responsiveness Coding (Kinard et al., 2017), Infant and Caregiver Behavior Scale (ICBS; Muratori et al., 2011), and the Transactional Engagement Coding (Uzonyi et al., 2021).

Global measures are used to assess the general presence or absence of behavioral concepts or constructs in the observation as a whole (Bell & Bell, 1989; Lotzin et al., 2015). Global measures relating to parent–child engagement can be coded from the coordination of the behaviors between a parent and infant, such as synchrony (de Mendonça et al., 2011) and mutuality (Aksan et al., 2006), or the parent’s behavior relative to a construct, such as emotional availability (Biringen & Easterbrooks, 2012). Typically, an overall score, often reported on a rating scale, is provided that reflects the presence or quality of the behavior or construct measured throughout the total observed engagement time (Bell & Bell, 1989). These scales can be rated for each partner or the dyad as a unit. Examples of global measures include the Measure of Active Engagement and Transactional Support (MAETS; Wetherby et al., 2013), the Joint Engagement Rating Inventory (JERI; Adamson et al., 2016), and the Mutually Responsive Orientation scale (MRO; Aksan et al., 2006).

Reliability and validity

As for all measurement, the integrity of both discrete and global measures hinges on good reliability (i.e., behaviors measured the same way each time) and validity (i.e., the coding system measures what it claims to measure) to permit confidence in conclusions drawn from the data (Aspland & Gardner, 2003; Bell & Bell, 1989). We will first discuss reliability. Assessing reliability of a measurement system is important to identify the indicators of human error or bias in coding the behaviors present in the interaction (Aspland & Gardner, 2003). In measurement of parent responsiveness, the assessment of inter-observer reliability is of particular importance because it reveals the degree to which different observers’ ratings of parent behavior align (Aspland & Gardner, 2003; Bell & Bell, 1989). If different observers rate the same parent behavior in different ways, the trustworthiness of the data is compromised. Risks associated with low inter-observer reliability may be avoided by having clear operational definitions, thorough coding training, inter-observer reliability checks early in the coding process, and regular checks throughout the process. Furthermore, regular checks can prevent observer drift from the original coding system (Aspland & Gardner, 2003). Depending on the nature of the data (e.g., continuous vs categorical ratings), inter-observer reliability may be calculated using one of the several different mathematical procedures, such as intraclass correlation (ICC), Cohen’s kappa, or percent agreement (Aspland & Gardner, 2003; Bell & Bell, 1989). Additional reliability assessment may focus on internal consistency, test–retest, split half, and so on.

In summary, reliability assessment ensures that the codes generated are consistent across observers and over time. In addition to reliability, examination of the validity of a measure, including a behavioral coding system, is important to ensure that it adequately quantifies the target constructs (Bell & Bell, 1989). Specifically, content validity for coding measures is the relevance and representativeness of the examples and definitions to the stated object of measurement, whereas construct validity is the degree to which a measurement system yields variables that perform as expected by theory and logic (Yoder et al., 2018).

Inconsistencies in design and reporting standards

The parent responsiveness literature has wide inconsistencies in design and reporting standards within each type of responsiveness construct. For example, both Crandall et al. (2019) and McDuffie and Yoder (2010) examined parent verbal responsiveness in relation to later language development in children with autism. One study reported the specifics of the development of the behavioral coding system, detailed steps of the coding process, and provided charts of coding definitions (Crandall et al., 2019), while the other study provided a cursory overview of the coding system without further details. In addition, the length of coded behavior time varied between these two studies and the inter-observer reliability was reported in different statistical metrics. When parent responsiveness is used as an intervention mediation variable or intervention outcome, but full details of the coding system across studies are not provided, interpreting findings in the context of the larger literature is challenging. This is particularly the case when findings across similar studies appear to conflict with one another. In addition, providing limited details about the coding system hinders the ability of researchers to conduct replication studies to validate results.

Currently, there are no standards for conducting and reporting behavioral coding for studies investigating parent responsiveness. While seminal works, such as those by Bakeman and Gottman (1997) and Bell and Bell (1989), have described the intricacies of behavioral coding methods, neither addressed reporting standards that would support consistency in parent responsiveness measurement design and use. More recently, Yoder et al. (2018) highlighted the importance of designing or adapting coding manuals, selecting elements of the coding system, choosing methods of behavioral sampling, and reporting critical aspects, such as coder training, reliability, and validity. However, no reporting standards currently exist to ensure that important aspects of parent responsiveness coding methods, such as the development and availability of the coding system, and training methods for coders, among others, are communicated beyond the research team that completed the study.

Objectives

Scoping reviews are implemented to synthesize evidence in an area and determine the scope of literature on a topic (Tricco et al., 2018). A scoping review was implemented for this project to synthesize the availability of evidence on various behavior coding systems used to measure parent responsiveness in families with children with autism. Given the inconsistencies in parent responsiveness metrics and reporting standards in the extant literature, this scoping review aimed to (a) summarize current behavioral coding methods used in measuring parent responsiveness to children with autism or elevated likelihood of autism, (b) synthesize the reported metrics, (c) highlight strengths and gaps in the reporting standards in the available literature, and (d) make a case for a best practice model for metrics and reporting standards.

Methods

Scoping review

The current study followed guidelines outlined by PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (Tricco et al., 2018); however, the review could not be registered with PROSPERO because this entity does not currently accept scoping reviews, literature reviews, or mapping reviews. The PRISMA checklist (Tricco et al., 2018), detailing the information related to each aspect of the guidelines, is provided in Supplementary Material 1.

Identification of evidence

To be included in the scoping review, studies were required to include a definition of parent responsiveness. Responsive behavior of the parent was measured either in a specific area (e.g., verbal responsiveness) or through broader classifications of parent behaviors (e.g., sensitivity), as long as at least one observable responsive characteristic was identified in the broad classification system. For example, a parent sensitivity behavior might be measured when a parent makes a statement, gesture, or action in response to the child. In addition, studies had to include children with autism or elevated likelihood of autism; child mean age of 5 years or younger; observational measures that were global, discrete, continuous, interval, or some combination; and observational settings that were naturalistic or a laboratory environment. There was no limit on the date range of the articles, meaning the articles were searched from the inception of databases (e.g., first allowable) through December 2019, when the search was completed. Only studies originally written in English or translated into English were included. Both published and unpublished works were allowable. Both intervention and observational studies were included, and there was no limitation on study design within these categories. Articles with varying reporting of reliability and validity were also allowed.

The exclusion criteria included studies that focused on parent reports rather than direct observation; qualitative studies; case studies with fewer than 10 participants; studies focused only on coding child behaviors; and previous review studies. In addition, studies were excluded that coded behaviors based on transcription of language during parent–child engagement. Studies that did not focus on parent responsiveness or where the focus on other constructs impeded measurement of responsiveness were excluded. Studies focusing on behavior modification in a school-based, instructional, or applied behavior construct were not included.

A trained clinical health sciences librarian (S.T.W.) performed the comprehensive electronic search of publications using the following databases: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature via EBSCO, EMBASE.com, Web of Science Core Collection, Academic Search Premier via EBSCO, Education Full Text via EBSCO, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) via EBSCO, and PsycInfo via EBSCO. Search terms were used to retrieve articles addressing the three main concepts of the search strategy: (1) autism; (2) parenting; and (3) responsiveness. The exact search strategy used in each of the electronic databases is reported in Supplementary Material 2. The search strategy was created for each database using multiple keyword terms and subject headings, if applicable (such as MeSH for PubMed). Results were downloaded to EndNote and duplicates were removed. All references were uploaded to Covidence Systematic Review software (https://www.covidence.org), a web-based tool designed to facilitate and track each step of the abstraction and review process (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram.

Three of the authors (T.E.U., H.L., and A.C.G.) screened articles to be included in the review. Prior to full screening implementation, all three reviewers underwent two to three sessions of training during which they reviewed articles together and discussed their criteria eligibility until agreement was 100% on preselected articles. Once all three reviewers completed training, full screening began for the study. Two reviewers (T.E.U. and H.L.) each screened all identified publications at the title and abstract level based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. To maintain consistency among reviewers, disagreements were negotiated to reach consensus on 100% of articles. Two reviewers (T.E.U. and A.C.G.) independently assessed each remaining article at the full-text level to determine eligibility. Again, disagreements were discussed until a consensus was met for 100% agreement on all articles. The final list consisted of 101 studies.

Data extraction

A data extraction template was created in Covidence (2019) and updated by two reviewers (T.E.U. and A.C.G.). Data were extracted for demographics (e.g., age of children, age of caregivers, parental education, family income, percent male children, and diagnosis categories), coding measures (e.g., name of coding system used, observational setting, observation length, and aspects of responsiveness measured), and reliability and validity measures. Additional measures were included as quality indicators of the evidence including information on the blinding of coders and incomplete video data. The raw data extracted from the studies are included as a Supplementary Material 4. Twenty percent of the articles were coded by both reviewers to assess the reliability of data extraction. The proportion agreement from the inter-rater reliability system through Covidence was 0.79. However, Covidence marked differences in extraction that were actually the same content (e.g., Maternal Behavior Rating Scale (MBRS)). Therefore, the inter-rater reliability was likely higher than 0.79. Any disagreements were discussed between T.E.U. and A.C.G. until a consensus was reached. Data were extracted for 101 studies, and data charting was checked for missing data.

No autistic individuals or community members were involved in developing the research question, study design, measures, implementation, or interpretation and dissemination of the findings. However, one author is the parent of a youth with intellectual disabilities.

Results

In total, 11,814 articles were identified through database searches. After duplicates were removed, there were 5,117 remaining articles to be screened at the title and abstract level. Of those, 4,941 articles were excluded based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The remaining 176 articles were assessed at the full-text level. Following review, 101 articles were included in the final synthesis. Figure 1 outlines the PRISMA flowchart of the search strategy, screening, and full-text review process. Further information regarding the extracted data is provided in each of the broad categories investigated.

Demographic information

The average age of the children included in the study was 38.11 months (range 3–65 months). Six studies did not report the average age of the participants and one study included observations from recordings taken from within the first 18 months of life. It is important to note that some studies included a follow-up at later ages, but the ages extracted for the scoping review were at baseline. The mean age of the parents was reported in 43 studies (M_age = 35.49 years). An additional three studies reported separate averages for both mothers and fathers.

In 66 of the studies (65.3%), the majority of the parents were females. A handful of studies (10) included both male and female caregivers. The remaining studies did not report sex of the parent who participated in the observation. Most (94) reported sex of the children, which showed on average 74.6% children, were male. The proportion of minority children was reported in 53 studies, which indicated the average of 36% minority children included in the 101 studies. Many studies (42) included children with an autism or pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) diagnosis. However, 17 studies included children with autism or PDD and typically developing (TD) children. Several included combinations of children who had autism or PDD, were at elevated likelihood for being diagnosed with autism, and TD children. An additional 23 studies included a combination of other disorders or risk statuses.

The majority of studies (73) did not report the income level of the families. For the studies that included income level, the scoping review team made classifications of socioeconomic status (SES) based on categories from Pew Research Center (2018) where lower-class families made less than US$48,500, middle class made US$48,500–US$145,500, and upper class made greater than US$145,500. Of those reported, the SES classification included 12 studies with mostly middle/upper-class families, 9 studies with mostly middle class, 6 studies with mostly lower/middle class, and one study with mostly lower class. Studies were also classified by parent education status. Most studies had parents who earned degrees beyond high school (78). Three studies mainly had parents who did not complete high school. The remaining 20 studies did not report the parent education status. The demographic information for each study is included in Supplementary Material 3.

Coding systems

A detailed summary of the coding systems and data extraction across articles can be found in Tables 1 to 3. The majority of studies specifically reported the name of the coding system (68%). Similarly, most coding systems reported had been previously used in studies of parent responsiveness, but a small percentage (22%) adapted existing coding systems. The remaining studies (10) did not report whether the coding system employed was original or modified. However, 52% of studies used discrete coding methods and 42% used global coding methods. The remainder used a combination of discrete and global coding methods. Overall, 41% used rating systems, 27% employed continuous coding (i.e., recording every behavior observed during the length of the observation), and 18% used interval coding (i.e., observing if a behavior did or did not occur within a specified time period). Meanwhile, 15% of studies had varied sampling methods, which were combined interval/continuous, interval/rating, rate, and frequency counts. There was variability in the means in which coding systems could be accessed in the reviewed publications. Slightly more than half of the coding systems (54%) were available in previously published material, with 3% in supplemental materials, 6% accessed by contacting the author, and 37% of studies did not report where the system could be accessed. Very few studies reported if the coding system used in their study had been used in non-Western countries (10%).

Table 1.

Titled coding systems and responsiveness measures.

Study ID	Name of coding system	Type of coding	Observational setting	Type of observational method	Aspect(s) of responsiveness measured
Aldred et al. (2012)	Parent–child interaction measure (PCI)	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Synchronous/asynchronous communication
Alquraini and Mahoney (2015)	MBRS	Global	Both	Unstructured	Parent responsiveness, affect, achievement, and directiveness
Alquraini et al. (2018)	Parent interactions with children: checklist of observations linked to outcomes (PICCOLO)	Global	Naturalistic	Unstructured	Parental affection, responsiveness, encouragement, and teaching
Alquraini et al. (2019)	PICCOLO	Global	Naturalistic	Unstructured	*
Apicella et al. (2013)	Caregiver–infant rating scale	Discrete	Naturalistic	Unstructured	Responsiveness to child’s attempts to attract attention. Vocal–touch–gesture responsiveness
Baker, Messinger, et al. (2010)	National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network (ECCRN) (parenting subscales)	Global	Laboratory	Unstructured	Sensitivity emotional supportiveness and structuring
Baker, Haltigan, et al. (2010)	Face-to-face/still-face protocol	Global	Laboratory	Structured	Parent smiles
Baker, Messinger, et al. (2010)	NICHD ECCRN	Global	Laboratory	Unstructured	*
Baptista et al. (2019)	Ainsworth’s sensitivity–insensitivity, cooperation–intrusiveness scales	Global	Laboratory	Structured	Sensitivity/insensitivity; Cooperation intrusiveness
Baranek et al. (2015)	MBRS	Global	Laboratory	Unstructured	*
Beaudoin et al. (2019)	Engagement state, child and caregiver behavior, and shared topic	Global	Both	Unstructured	Caregiver behavior of scaffolding, symbol highlighting, following in on child’s focus, parent affective communication.
Blacher et al. (2013)	Parent–child interaction rating system (PCIRS)	Global	Laboratory	Both	Parental positive and negative affect, sensitivity, intrusiveness, detachment, stimulation of cognition
Bontinck et al. (2018)	Erickson Observation Subscales, Mother–child interaction: frequency coding scheme	Both	Laboratory	Structured	Mother’s responsiveness and social response
Campbell et al. (2016)	NICHD ECCRN	Global	Laboratory	Unstructured	*
Campbell et al. (2018)	NICHD ECCRN	Global	Both	Unstructured	*
Caplan et al. (2019)	Parent directiveness and interference-revised (PDI-R)	Both	Laboratory	Unstructured	Parental responsiveness in supportive directiveness, supported engagement, and interference
Casenhiser et al. (2013)	Subset of MEHRIT Fidelity Scale	Global	Laboratory	Unstructured	Co-regulation, positive affect, support/structure, reciprocity
I. H. Diken (2012)	Turkish version of MBRS	Global	Laboratory	Unstructured	*
O. Diken and Mahoney (2013)	Turkish version of MBRS	Global	Laboratory	Unstructured	*
Divan et al. (2019)	Dyadic communication measure for autism (DCMA)	Discrete	Naturalistic	Unstructured	Synchrony to child’s communication
Dolev et al. (2009)	Emotional availability scales (EAS)	Global	Laboratory	Structured	Sensitivity, structuring, intrusiveness, hostility
Esposito and Venuti (2009)	Cy observation codes	Discrete	Naturalistic	Unstructured	Response to child’s cry: tactile, object presentation, verbalization
Ginn et al. (2017)	DPICS-III	Discrete	Laboratory	Structured	Positive following; negative leading
Green et al. (2015)	Manchester Assessment of Caregiver–Infant Child Interaction (MACI)	Global	Laboratory	Unstructured	Caregiver sensitive responsiveness, caregiver, non-directiveness, dyadic mutuality, and dyadic intensity of engagement
Green et al. (2017)	MACI; rating—used at 9, 15, 27 months), DCMA (event coding, used at 27–39 months)	Both	Naturalistic	Unstructured	*
Guo et al. (2017)	The Three Boxes procedure, emotion engagement states	Discrete	Naturalistic	Structured	Sensitive and contingent responses to child’s needs
Harker et al. (2016)	MBRS-revised	Global	Laboratory	Unstructured	*
Harrop et al. (2016)	Caregiver–child interaction (CCX)	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Contingent responses (verbal, physical, redirections)
Haven et al. (2014)	System for coding interactions and family functioning	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Parental positive affect, emotional support, and cohesiveness
Hirschler-Guttenberg, Golan, et al. (2015)	Coding interactive behavior (CIB)	Global	Naturalistic	Unstructured	Parental sensitivity. intrusiveness, and limit setting
Hudry et al. (2013)	DCMA	Global	Laboratory	Unstructured	*
Hutman et al. (2009)	Maternal synchronization coding system	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Synchronization with child’s toy interest
Karaaslan (2016)	Turkish version of MBRS	Global	Laboratory	Unstructured	*
Kinard et al. (2017)	Free play responsiveness coding	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Follow-in utterances and physical play acts
Koren-Karie et al. (2009)	EAS	Global	Laboratory	Both	*
Ku et al. (2019)	Adapted from Early Head Start 24-month 3-bag scales	Global	Laboratory	Unstructured	Parental encouragement, negativity, sensitivity, detachment, and intrusiveness
Lambert-Brown et al. (2015)	Face-to-face/still-face, facial action coding system	Discrete	Laboratory	Structured	Contingent responsiveness to child’s smiles
Losh et al. (2019)	PCIRS	Global	Laboratory	Structured	Parental positive and negative affect, sensitivity, intrusiveness, detachment, stimulation of cognition
Mahoney and Perales (2003)	MBRS	Global	Both	Unstructured	*
Mahoney and Perales (2005)	MBRS	Global	Laboratory	Unstructured	*
Mahoney and Solomon (2016)	MBRS	Global	Naturalistic	Unstructured	*
Mahoney et al. (2004)	MBRS	Global	Naturalistic	Unstructured	*
McConachie et al. (2005)	Joy and Fun Assessment	Global	Naturalistic	Unstructured	Positive affect, pretend, variation, turn-taking, imitations, expansions
Muratori et al. (2011)	ICBS	Discrete	Naturalistic	Unstructured	Solicitation or regulation of child behavior
Oppenheim et al. (2012)	Part of the EAS	Global	Laboratory	Both	*
Ostfeld-Etzion et al. (2016)	Pick-up and delayed gratification paradigms	Discrete	Naturalistic	Structured	Parental response of harsh control, warm control, and no control
Parladé et al. (2020)	DPICS	Discrete	Laboratory	Structured	Parent verbalizations of positive, negative, leading, or directive statements
Patterson et al. (2014)	MBRS	Global	Laboratory	Unstructured	*
Perryman et al. (2013)	Parent–child free play (PCFP)	Discrete	Laboratory	Structured	Parental follow-in comments
Poslawsky et al. (2015)	Parental EAS	Global	Laboratory	Unstructured	*
Rogers et al. (2012)	Early Start Denver Model Parent Fidelity Tool	Global	Laboratory	Unstructured	Parental sensitivity and responsivity to child communications
Ruble et al. (2008)	The Social Interaction Rating Scale (SIRS)	Global	Laboratory	Structured	Contingency, directiveness, initiation, movement, affect, and maintenance
Scudder et al. (2019)	DPICS-IV	Discrete	Laboratory	Structured	*
Shire et al. (2016)	MBRS	Global	Laboratory	Unstructured	*
Solomon et al. (2014)	MBRS	Global	Naturalistic	Unstructured	*
Stahmer et al. (2020)	PICCOLO	Global	Naturalistic	Unstructured	*
Wachtel and Carter (2008)	Parent–child interaction rating scales (PCIRS: Sosinsky et al., 2004). Adapted from the NICHD ECCRN, the caregiver–child affect, responsiveness, and engagement scales (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2002), the EAS and the parent–child early relational assessment (Clark, 1999)	Global	Laboratory	Unstructured	Supportive, cognitive, and disengaged engagement
Wan et al. (2012)	Global rating scheme of parent–infant interaction	Global	Laboratory	Unstructured	Sensitive responsiveness and non-directiveness
Wan et al. (2013)	MACI	Global	Laboratory	Unstructured	*
Watson et al. (2017)	Parent responsiveness coding system (PRCS), adapted from Yoder et al. (2015) and MBRS	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	PRCS: parent verbal or play response to child *
Woynaroski et al. (2016)	Parent–child free play and parent–child snack	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Responses to child’s attentional leads
Zlomke et al. (2017)	DPICS-IV	Discrete	Laboratory	Structured	*
Zlomke et al. (2019)	DPICS-III	Discrete	Both	Structured	*

MBRS (Mahoney et al., 1986); PICCOLO (Roggman et al., 2013); DPIC (Eyberg, 2013); DCMA (Aldred et al., 2004; Green et al., 2010); EAS (Biringen et al., 2000); MEHRIT: Milton & Ethel Harris Research Initiative Treatment.

Previously addressed coding system.

Table 2.

Untitled coding systems and responsiveness measures.*

Study ID	Type of coding	Observational setting	Type of observational method	Aspect(s) of responsiveness measured
Bottema-Beutel et al. (2014)	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Parents follow-in utterances
Bottema-Beutel et al. (2018)	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Follow-in comments or directives
Brian et al. (2016)	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Number of language opportunities provided by the parent
Brian et al. (2017)	Discrete	Naturalistic	Unstructured	Parent smiling
Brigham et al. (2010)	Discrete	Laboratory	Structured	Parent attentional cues used to maintain, redirect, or introduce child’s attention to an object
Campbell et al. (2015)	Both	Laboratory	Unstructured	Parental scaffolding, warmth, sensitivity, stimulating cognitive development, intrusiveness
Choi et al. (2019)	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Contingent or non-contingent verbal or non-verbal responses
Crandall et al. (2019)	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Follow-in verbal language
Flippin and Watson (2011)	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Play responsiveness and verbal responsiveness
Flippin and Watson (2015)	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Verbal responsiveness
Freeman and Kasari (2013)	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Parental response through verbalization, motor action, hand-over-hand prompt, or a gesture
Green et al. (2010)	Global	Laboratory	Unstructured	Parental synchrony
Gulsrud et al. (2010)	Both	Laboratory	Unstructured	Engaging/helping, redirection/distraction, following, comforting
Haebig et al. (2013a)	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Follow-in comments or directives; descriptions; redirections or introductions
Haebig et al. (2013b)	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Follow-in comments or directives; descriptions; redirections or introductions
Harrop et al. (2017)	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Response or non-response to child behavior
Hirschler-Guttenberg, Feldman, et al. (2015)	Discrete	Naturalistic	Structured	Mother regulation facilitation of physical and verbal comfort, diverting talk and play; emotional reflection and cognitive reappraisals
Kaale et al. (2018)	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Affect, introduction, expansion, and child-directed talk
Kasari et al. (1988)	Discrete	Laboratory	Structured	Mutual play, positive feedback, response to child’s behavior
Kasari et al. (2014)	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Parental interactions of responsive, ignoring, or directive
Laurent and Gorman (2018)	Discrete	Naturalistic	Unstructured	Engaging/helping, redirection/distraction, following, comforting
Leezenbaum et al. (2014)	Discrete	Naturalistic	Both	Maternal verbalizations following infant’s communicative behavior
Lemanek et al. (1993)	Discrete	Laboratory	Structured	Parent behaviors of structure, instruction/cue, and reinforcement
McDuffie and Yoder (2010)	Discrete	NR	Structured	Follow-in verbal language, linguistic mapping, frequency or response, expansion of response
Meirsschaut et al. (2011)	Discrete	Laboratory	Both	Social responses (verbal and non-verbal) as confirming, non-confirming, or neutral
Ozcaliskan et al. (2018)	Discrete	Laboratory	Structured	Parent gestures (deictic, give, conventional, iconic)
Papoulidi et al. (2017)	Discrete	Naturalistic	Both	Verbal or gestural response, gaze, affect
Schwichtenberg et al. (2019)	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Maternal look, affect, and vocalizations
Siller and Sigman (2002)	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Indicating (point to, show, or offer toy), verbalizations about targets
Siller et al. (2013)	Discrete	Both	Unstructured	Maternal verbal behaviors and synchronization
Stadnick et al. (2015)	Global	Laboratory	Unstructured	Parent responsiveness through following child’s lead, expanding child’s language or play
Steiner et al. (2018)	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Parent behaviors of pointing, demonstrating, or verbalizing. Parent synchronous behavior as demanding or undemanding
Strid et al. (2013)	Discrete	Laboratory	Unstructured	Parent’s verbal comments
Talbott et al. (2016)	Discrete	Both	Both	Contingent or non-contingent responses
Tipton et al. (2017)	Discrete	Laboratory	Both	Parental language strategies during adapted shared reading activity
Walton and Ingersoll (2015)	Discrete	Laboratory	Structured	Follow-in and demanding verbalizations
Yang (2016)	Both	Laboratory	Unstructured	Parental positive verbal responses and responding promptly to child’s lead

References for studies with adapted systems are included in Supplemental Material.

NR: not reported.

Table 3.

Coding data summary.

Data	Percentage reported
Identified coding systems
Titled	68
Untitled	32
Type of coding
Discrete	52
Global	42
Both	6
Setting
Laboratory	72
Naturalistic	20
Both	7
Not reported	1
Observational method
Structured	22
Unstructured	70
Both	8
Sampling method
Continuous	27
Interval	19
Rating	40
Other	14
Availability
Contact author	6
Supplemental	3
Open access/published	54
Not reported	37

The observational setting of the recorded parent–child engagement was primarily in a laboratory setting (72%) or both laboratory and naturalistic setting (69%). Just 20% of recordings occurred in naturalistic settings only. Most studies (70%) used unstructured observational methods where specific instructions were not given to guide how parents behaved while engaging their child. However, 22% of studies provided parents with specific instructions for play interactions, and 8% used a combination of both (i.e., unstructured and structured play). The majority of studies used a standard set of toys (72%); 13% did not use standard toys; and the remaining 15% did not report this information.

The length of coded parent–child engagement samples ranged from 32 s to 51 min. Many studies coded video samples having a duration of 5–10 min (59%), followed by 11–15 min (17%) and 16–20 min (8%). However, 3% did not report a recorded time or reported times varied. In a handful of studies, duration of video recordings exceeded the duration of the segment coded (e.g., recorded for 20 min but the first 5 min were excluded, and the remaining 15 min were coded). Only 6% of studies reported the length of time to complete coding, which ranged from 4 min per observation to 4 months to complete coding for an entire observational dataset. The remaining studies did not report either the length of time required for observers to code behavior within the study-defined segment for a single parent–child engagement, or the time required to code an entire dataset.

Parent responsiveness

Most studies (85%) reported parent responsiveness as the primary aim of the project. When cited as a secondary aim, parent responsiveness was often a non-primary outcome variable in an intervention study. Over half (65%) of the studies measured parent responsiveness as part of an intervention outcome.

Within coding systems, parent responsiveness behaviors were 96% proximal (i.e., very closely related) and 4% distal (i.e., distantly related) to the purpose of the coding system. An example of a proximal relation was identified when parent verbal responses were measured with a verbal responsiveness coding system. An example of a distal relation was identified when parent smiling was identified with a secure attachment coding system. Across studies, the data extraction for specific aspects of parent responsiveness in the 101 articles revealed such a wide range that further clarity was needed to conceptualize the measured aspects in a more concrete manner. Therefore, measured aspects of parent responsiveness were classified into one of the three categories developed by the first three authors: (1) type of parent behavior in responsiveness (e.g., reaction to child vs overall parent behavior), (2) type of guidance in responsiveness (e.g., parents coached in responsiveness at any point of the study vs. uncoached natural responses during observation), and (3) responses associated with behavior management of children (e.g., positive, negative, or neutral). Most studies fell in the category of measuring the parent’s reaction to the child (83%). Many of the studies observed naturally occurring responses to the child (66%). In the remaining 34%, responsiveness was measured in parents who had been coached in responsive behaviors at some point during a study. The majority (79%) of studies observed responsiveness that was neutral, where the child’s behavior was not managed by parent responsiveness. The remaining focused on behavior management that involved a combination of positive–negative responses, neutral–positive responses, or negative–positive–neutral responses to manage a child’s behavior. Overall, across the three categories of responsiveness classification, parent responsiveness was most commonly conceptualized by verbal and non-verbal acts within play or caregiving circumstances.

Reliability and validity

Overall, 85% of articles reported information around the percentage of videos coded for inter-observer reliability. The most common percentage of videos coded was 20%–25%. However, 68% of the studies reporting number of videos used indicated that inter-observer reliability was assessed using 30% or fewer video recordings; only 4% of the studies used greater than 50% of the video recordings. A few studies reported an unconventional approach, such as using the first 3 min of all videos to assess reliability.

All studies were examined to determine the type of training coders received to perform reliability trials. Only 41% of studies reported information on how coders were trained, with a wide range in what was reported. For example, some studies provided a very detailed training protocol (Apicella et al., 2013; Zlomke et al., 2019) where the educational background of coders, number of training hours received, pre-established criteria for reliability, and criterion videos used for training were described. Other studies reported cursory details, such as “trained to 90% reliability” (Hirschler-Guttenberg, Feldman, et al., 2015). The remaining studies either did not provide any training details or mentioned “trained coders,” “certified coders,” or “acceptable level of agreement” with no indication of how coders were trained, certified, or what level of agreement was deemed acceptable.

The most common reliability statistics used across studies were ICC coefficient and Kappa. Other reported reliability statistics included inter-rater agreement, average agreement, Pearson’s correlation coefficient, multiple agreement, and percentage of exact agreement.

A low number of articles (16%) reported validity information. In total, 14 studies acknowledged validity in the form of measuring variables that perform as expected by theory and logic (Yoder et al., 2018) from previous literature (e.g., dyadic literature, social communication literature), or through statistical means, such as factor analysis (Mahoney et al., 1986) or bivariate correlations (Eyberg et al., 2005). Two articles acknowledged using measures that had not previously been validated and therefore validated the measures in the context of the study. Pertaining to reducing risk of measurement bias, nearly 60% of the studies indicated their coders were blind to the study purpose. A summary of reliability and validity is provided in Table 4.

Table 4.

Reliability and validity summary.

Data	Percentage of articles reported
Blinding of coders	60
Inter-observer reliability	85
Training protocol for coders	41
Validity	16

Discussion

This study focused on parent responsiveness and the many ways it has been assessed through behavioral coding measures. The aims of this scoping review were to (a) summarize current behavioral coding methods used in measuring parent responsiveness to children with autism or elevated likelihood of autism, (b) synthesize the reported metrics used, (c) highlight strengths and gaps in the reporting standards of behavioral coding, and (d) propose a best practice model for metrics and reporting standards.

Summary of behavioral coding methods and metrics

Our review showed that current behavioral coding methods in the 101 articles included global, discrete, and a combination of measures. Many of the studies were based on unstructured interactions between parent and child, with varying time duration and play contexts. Across the coding systems, frequently measured constructs included types of engagement, non-verbal versus verbal responses, and parental responses to the child or their behaviors independent of the child. The same constructs were incorporated into interventions designed to support parent responsive behavior with children with or at elevated likelihood of autism (Green et al., 2010; Ingersoll & Wainer, 2013; Watson et al., 2017).

The most common reliability metric reported was inter-rater reliability of coding, primarily analyzed using ICC and Kappa values. Validity metrics were reported infrequently. When validity was addressed, it was mostly by citing former literature to support construct validity. Approximately half of the studies used titled coding systems while the half using untitled systems adapted their coding systems from available literature. The reported literature referenced for adapted coding systems dated as far back as 1988, but most studies used literature within the past 20 years. Among the coding systems listed in Table 1, those used most frequently were as follows: MBRS (Mahoney et al., 1986); PICCOLO (Roggman et al., 2013); DPIC (Eyberg, 2013); DCMA (Aldred et al., 2004; Green et al., 2010); and EAS (Biringen et al., 2000).

Strengths and gaps in parent responsiveness coding in literature

The literature on behavior coding of parent responsiveness to young children diagnosed with or at elevated likelihood for autism featured several strengths. First, all studies reported at least some type of demographic information, particularly child characteristics. Second, inter-observer reliability statistics were reported, with many studies providing some level of basic details regarding how reliability standards were achieved between coders. Given that coding of parent responsiveness requires some subjective judgments in applying definitions to observed interactions (Aspland & Gardner, 2003; Bell & Bell, 1989; Yoder et al., 2018), reporting inter-observer reliability is necessary for determining if observational data accurately represent the behaviors that occurred. In addition, reporting the procedures used in a study to achieve reliability is critical for replication in implementing the coding system by other research teams.

Another relative strength is that studies explored many components of responsivity within the context of parent–child interactions; thus, the literature offers a rich consideration of parent responsivity as a construct (Green et al., 2015; Harrop et al., 2016; Parladé et al., 2020). In addition, there are numerous tools for capturing different components of responsivity (e.g., Manchester Assessment of Caregiver–Infant Child Interaction, Caregiver–Child Interaction, and Dyadic Parent–Child Interaction Coding System-IV, respectively), providing future researchers with a wealth of options to consider as they look for tools that will best support their specific research objectives.

Despite these strengths, noticeable gaps were identified in the parent responsiveness literature focused on autism. For example, relatively few studies reported demographic information for parents. With the complexities in examining the dyadic interaction within parent–child engagement (Fogel, 2009), missing parent demographics, such as age, sex, income, and education, reduces insights into potential mediators or moderators of parent responsiveness, especially within intervention studies that aim to increase parent responsiveness. Likewise, the frequent omission of specific details on how coders were trained impedes the evaluation of data fidelity and the ability of other researchers to use similar training protocols.

Another considerable gap is that validity (content and construct) was rarely addressed in the studies. Thus, the results of most of these studies cannot be fully interpreted in relation to how accurately parent responsiveness as coded represents the intended construct or dimension of parent responsiveness. This gap in turn limits our ability to interpret consistent and inconsistent findings across studies and to advance our theories regarding the role(s) of parent responsiveness in the development of children with autism.

Missing names of coding systems (mostly discrete measures) represent another gap in the existing literature. Current best practice recommendations for behavioral coding suggest that in the process of study development, well-vetted existing coding systems should be used when appropriate to the study aims, or a coding system should be adapted from an existing such system if needed to align more closely with the study aims (Yoder et al., 2018). Thus, having a named coding system, or an easily identified modification of a coding system, would improve researchers’ ability to locate existing coding systems that may measure aspects of parent responsiveness relevant to their own study aims. Furthermore, the previous studies that used those coding systems may include information on the reliability and validity of the coding system.

Although we acknowledged as a relative strength that the studies included in this review explored many components of parent responsiveness, this aspect of the literature also presented a logistical hurdle in the scoping review that will impact researchers seeking to study parent responsiveness. That is, across varied frameworks in which parent responsiveness has been examined (e.g., synchrony, de Mendonça et al., 2011; parenting, Landry et al., 2006; mutuality, Aksan et al., 2006; communication, Leezenbaum et al., 2014; emotional availability, Biringen & Easterbrooks, 2012), the definitions and conceptualized functions of responsivity vary in nuanced ways. Furthermore, we found that responsive behaviors were coded from various observable modalities, including verbal, gestural, tactile, and auditory cues. Such variations present challenges in determining whether researchers have measured the same construct of “parent responsiveness” across different studies or have measured different constructs that would be expected to have differential associations with aspects of child development. Thus, it is imperative for authors to make clear the specific concept and behavior(s) being studied, along with their operationalized parameters, to communicate their findings and the implications of their studies effectively.

Best practice recommendations for metrics and reporting standards

We propose an initial set of standards for adoption by autism researchers when focusing on parent responsiveness. First, a convention should be adopted to standardize the type of information reported within studies. These include clearly reporting parent demographic information, documentation of the reliability and validity of the coding system, and details regarding the training protocol for coders. In addition, operational definitions and parameters of all behavioral coding constructs should be reported (whether original or adapted) with indications of what modifications were made, and citing references for accessing such definitions. Naturally, inclusion of such information may increase article length to the point it exceeds a journal’s word or page count limit. Solutions to this dilemma include publisher creation of exemption criteria, a defined extension of page/word limit restrictions to permit such reporting, or requiring supplemental materials to report details about the coding system. Providing these details significantly increases the transparency of coding procedures and strengthens the science of behavioral coding. As a method that is used so widely to explore developmental behaviors and outcomes, behavioral coding measures should be reported with as much detail as statistical analysis.

Limitations and potential future directions

The goal of this review was to summarize behavioral coding measures used to evaluate parent responsiveness to children with autism or elevated risk of autism. While we employed a broad search criterion, we chose to emphasize behavioral coding systems that quantified parent responsiveness and therefore to exclude qualitative studies. Even though qualitative studies did not fit our framework for this scoping review, they could provide support in understanding broader concepts within the parent responsiveness literature and inform the description of responsive parent behaviors. Further review of this information could be helpful in creating more thorough and consistent standards for reporting in this area. As with any scoping review, our study did not systematically assess articles for quality and rigor. These components could be added to a future review to provide information about “levels of evidence” provided by the articles. However, we did indicate some components of quality, such as reliability, validity, and blinding of coders. A future systematic review could go beyond synthesis and aid in indicating the overall level of rigor of behavioral coding within the parent responsiveness literature. Furthermore, a systematic review of what components of available interventions are key or active ingredients that propel successful treatment outcomes could be extremely worthwhile to researchers and clinicians.

Conclusion

This report is a comprehensive summary of parent responsiveness measures used in studies focused on the child autism population. It can be used as a reference for researchers conducting future studies in the same topic area to identify existing coding systems that might be appropriate for their studies. However, our study suggests the need for increased standardization in the methods of measuring and reporting behavioral coding of parent responsiveness. Such standardization would allow for better comparison of findings across studies and inform future research. By knowing more details about the methodology used, and specifically the behaviors coded, the information may help clinicians know the kinds of behaviors that might be useful in their own interventions with autistic children.

Supplemental Material

sj-doc-1-aut-10.1177_13623613231152641 – Supplemental material for Scoping review of behavioral coding measures used to evaluate parent responsiveness of children with autism or elevated risk of autism

Supplemental material, sj-doc-1-aut-10.1177_13623613231152641 for Scoping review of behavioral coding measures used to evaluate parent responsiveness of children with autism or elevated risk of autism by Thelma E Uzonyi, Alaina C Grissom, Ranita V Anderson, Helen Lee, Sarah Towner-Wright, Elizabeth R Crais, Linda R Watson and Rebecca J Landa in Autism

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-aut-10.1177_13623613231152641 – Supplemental material for Scoping review of behavioral coding measures used to evaluate parent responsiveness of children with autism or elevated risk of autism

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-aut-10.1177_13623613231152641 for Scoping review of behavioral coding measures used to evaluate parent responsiveness of children with autism or elevated risk of autism by Thelma E Uzonyi, Alaina C Grissom, Ranita V Anderson, Helen Lee, Sarah Towner-Wright, Elizabeth R Crais, Linda R Watson and Rebecca J Landa in Autism

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-3-aut-10.1177_13623613231152641 – Supplemental material for Scoping review of behavioral coding measures used to evaluate parent responsiveness of children with autism or elevated risk of autism

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-aut-10.1177_13623613231152641 for Scoping review of behavioral coding measures used to evaluate parent responsiveness of children with autism or elevated risk of autism by Thelma E Uzonyi, Alaina C Grissom, Ranita V Anderson, Helen Lee, Sarah Towner-Wright, Elizabeth R Crais, Linda R Watson and Rebecca J Landa in Autism

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-4-aut-10.1177_13623613231152641 – Supplemental material for Scoping review of behavioral coding measures used to evaluate parent responsiveness of children with autism or elevated risk of autism

Supplemental material, sj-docx-4-aut-10.1177_13623613231152641 for Scoping review of behavioral coding measures used to evaluate parent responsiveness of children with autism or elevated risk of autism by Thelma E Uzonyi, Alaina C Grissom, Ranita V Anderson, Helen Lee, Sarah Towner-Wright, Elizabeth R Crais, Linda R Watson and Rebecca J Landa in Autism

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-6-aut-10.1177_13623613231152641 – Supplemental material for Scoping review of behavioral coding measures used to evaluate parent responsiveness of children with autism or elevated risk of autism

Supplemental material, sj-docx-6-aut-10.1177_13623613231152641 for Scoping review of behavioral coding measures used to evaluate parent responsiveness of children with autism or elevated risk of autism by Thelma E Uzonyi, Alaina C Grissom, Ranita V Anderson, Helen Lee, Sarah Towner-Wright, Elizabeth R Crais, Linda R Watson and Rebecca J Landa in Autism

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-7-aut-10.1177_13623613231152641 – Supplemental material for Scoping review of behavioral coding measures used to evaluate parent responsiveness of children with autism or elevated risk of autism

Supplemental material, sj-docx-7-aut-10.1177_13623613231152641 for Scoping review of behavioral coding measures used to evaluate parent responsiveness of children with autism or elevated risk of autism by Thelma E Uzonyi, Alaina C Grissom, Ranita V Anderson, Helen Lee, Sarah Towner-Wright, Elizabeth R Crais, Linda R Watson and Rebecca J Landa in Autism

Supplemental Material

sj-xlsx-5-aut-10.1177_13623613231152641 – Supplemental material for Scoping review of behavioral coding measures used to evaluate parent responsiveness of children with autism or elevated risk of autism

Supplemental material, sj-xlsx-5-aut-10.1177_13623613231152641 for Scoping review of behavioral coding measures used to evaluate parent responsiveness of children with autism or elevated risk of autism by Thelma E Uzonyi, Alaina C Grissom, Ranita V Anderson, Helen Lee, Sarah Towner-Wright, Elizabeth R Crais, Linda R Watson and Rebecca J Landa in Autism

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding support for Thelma E. Uzonyi at the initial stages of this project included the Royster Society of Fellows at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Institute of Education Sciences and the US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs Doctoral Leadership Grant #H325D160060. Funding support for Alaina Grissom included a graduate assistantship provided by the University of Tennessee Health Science Center provided to students in the Speech and Hearing Science doctoral program.

ORCID iDs

Thelma E Uzonyi

Sarah Towner-Wright

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Adamson

L. B.

Bakeman

(1984). Mothers’ communicative acts: Changes during infancy. Infant Behavior and Development, 7(4), 467–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0163-6383(84)80006-5

Adamson

L. B.

Bakeman

Deckner

D. F.

Nelson

P. B.

(2014). From interactions to conversations: The development of joint engagement during early childhood. Child Development, 85(3), 941–955. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12189

Adamson

L. B.

Bakeman

Deckner

D. F.

Romski

(2009). Joint engagement and the emergence of language in children with autism and Down syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-008-0601-7

Adamson

L. B.

Bakeman

Suma

(2016). The Joint Engagement Rating Inventory (JERI) (Technical report 25). Developmental Laboratory, Psychology Department, Georgia State University.

Aksan

Kochanska

Ortmann

M. R.

(2006). Mutually responsive orientation between parents and their young children: Toward methodological advances in the science of relationships. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 833–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.833

Aldred

Green

Adams

(2004). A new social communication intervention for children with autism: Pilot randomised controlled treatment study suggesting effectiveness. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(8), 1420–1430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00338.x

*Aldred

Green

Emsley

McConachie

(2012). Brief report: Mediation of treatment effect in a communication intervention for pre-school children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(3), 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-011-1248-3

*Alquraini

Al-Odaib

Al-Dhalaan

Merza

Mahoney

(2018). Feasibility of responsive reaching with mothers and young children with autism in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Early Intervention, 40(4), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815118789176

*Alquraini

Al-Odaib

Al-Dhalaan

Merza

Mahoney

(2019). Relationship-based intervention with young children with autism in Saudi Arabia: Impediments and consequences of parenting stress and depression. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 66(3), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2018.1487042

10.

*Alquraini

Mahoney

(2015). An exploratory investigation of the role of parenting stress in Relationship Focused Intervention. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 28(6), 536–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12148

11.

*Apicella

Chericoni

Costanzo

Baldini

Billeci

Cohen

Muratori

(2013). Reciprocity in interaction: A window on the first year of life in autism. Autism Research and Treatment, 2013, 705895. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/705895

12.

Aspland

Gardner

(2003). Observational measures of parent-child interaction: An introductory review. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 8(3), 136–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-3588.00061

13.

Bakeman

Gottman

J. M.

(1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge University Press.

14.

*Baker

J. K.

Haltigan

J. D.

Brewster

Jaccard

Messinger

(2010). Non-expert ratings of infant and parent emotion: Concordance with expert coding and relevance to early autism risk. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34(1), 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025409350365

15.

*Baker

J. K.

Messinger

D. S.

Ekas

N. V.

Lindahl

K. M.

Brewster

(2010). Nonexpert ratings of family and parent-child interaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(6), 775–778. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021275

16.

*Baker

J. K.

Messinger

D. S.

Lyons

K. K.

Grantz

C. J.

(2010). A pilot study of maternal sensitivity in the context of emergent autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(8), 988–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-010-0948-4

17.

*Baptista

Sampaio

Fachada

Osório

Mesquita

A. R.

Garayzabal

Duque

Oliveira

Soares

(2019). Maternal interactive behaviours in parenting children with Williams syndrome and autism spectrum disorder: Relations with emotional/behavioural problems. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(1), 216–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3715-6

18.

*Baranek

G. T.

Watson

L. R.

Turner-Brown

Field

S. H.

Crais

E. R.

Wakeford

Little

L. M.

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, 386951. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/386951

19.

*Beaudoin

A. J.

Sébire

Couture

(2019). Parent-mediated intervention tends to improve parent-child engagement, and behavioral outcomes of toddlers with ASD-positive screening: A randomized crossover trial. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 66, 101416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2019.101416

20.

Bell

D. C.

Bell

L. G.

(1989). Micro and macro measurement of family systems concepts. Journal of Family Psychology, 3(2), 137–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080530

21.

Biringen

Easterbrooks

M. A.

(2012). Emotional availability: Concept, research, and window on developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 24(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579411000617

22.

Biringen

Robinson

J. L.

Emde

R. N.

(2000). Appendix B: The emotional availability scales (3rd ed.; an abridged infancy/early childhood version). Attachment & Human Development, 2(2), 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730050085626

23.

*Blacher

Baker

B. L.

Kaladjian

(2013). Syndrome specificity and mother–child interactions: Examining positive and negative parenting across contexts and time. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43(4), 761–774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1605-x

24.

*Bontinck

Warreyn

Meirsschaut

Roeyers

(2018). Parent–child interaction in children with autism spectrum disorder and their siblings: Choosing a coding strategy. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(1), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0877-3

25.

*Bottema-Beutel

Lloyd

Watson

Yoder

(2018). Bidirectional influences of caregiver utterances and supported joint engagement in children with and without autism spectrum disorder. Autism Research, 11(5), 755–765. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1928

26.

*Bottema-Beutel

Yoder

P. J.

Hochman

J. M.

Watson

L. R.

(2014). The role of supported joint engagement and parent utterances in language and social communication development in children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(9), 2162–2174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2092-z

27.

*Brian

J. A.

Smith

I. M.

Zwaigenbaum

Bryson

S. E.

(2017). Cross-site randomized control trial of the Social ABCs caregiver-mediated intervention for toddlers with autism spectrum disorder. Autism Research, 10(10), 1700–1711. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1818

28.

*Brian

J. A.

Smith

I. M.

Zwaigenbaum

Roberts

Bryson

S. E.

(2016). The Social ABCs caregiver-mediated intervention for toddlers with autism spectrum disorder: Feasibility, acceptability, and evidence of promise from a multisite study. Autism Research, 9(8), 899–912. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1582

29.

*Brigham

N. B.

Yoder

P. J.

Jarzynka

M. A.

Tapp

(2010). The sequential relationship between parent attentional cues and sustained attention to objects in young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(2), 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-009-0848-7

30.

*Campbell

S. B.

Leezenbaum

N. B.

Mahoney

A. S.

Day

T. N.

Schmidt

E. N.

(2015). Social engagement with parents in 11-month-old siblings at high and low genetic risk for autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 19(8), 915–924. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361314555146

31.

*Campbell

S. B.

Leezenbaum

N. B.

Mahoney

A. S.

Moore

E. L.

Brownell

C. A.

(2016). Pretend play and social engagement in toddlers at high and low genetic risk for autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(7), 2305–2316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2764-y

32.

*Campbell

S. B.

Mahoney

A. S.

Northrup

Moore

E. L.

Leezenbaum

N. B.

Brownell

C. A.

(2018). Developmental changes in pretend play from 22- to 34-months in younger siblings of children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 46(3), 639–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-017-0324-3

33.

*Caplan

Blacher

Eisenhower

(2019). Responsive parenting and prospective social skills development in early school-aged children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(8), 3203–3217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-04039-4

34.

*Casenhiser

D. M.

Shanker

S. G.

Stieben

(2013). Learning through interaction in children with autism: Preliminary data from asocial-communication-based intervention. Autism, 17(2), 220–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361311422052

35.

*Choi

Shah

Rowe

M. L.

Nelson

C. A.

Tager-Flusberg

(2019). Gesture development, caregiver responsiveness, and language and diagnostic outcomes in infants at high and low risk for autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(7), 2556–2572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-03980-8

36.

Chorney

J. M.

Garcia

A. M.

Berlin

K. S.

Bakeman

Kain

Z. N.

(2010). Time-window sequential analysis: An introduction for pediatric psychologists. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 35(10), 1061–1070. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsq022

37.

Clark

(1999). The parent-child early relational assessment: A factorial validity study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(5), 821–846.

38.

Covidence. (2019). Covidence systematic review software. Veritas Health Innovation.

39.

*Crandall

M. C.

McDaniel

Watson

L. R.

Yoder

P. J.

(2019). The relation between early parent verb input and later expressive verb vocabulary in children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 62(6), 1787–1797. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0081

40.

Deater-Deckard

O’Connor

T. G.

(2000). Parent–child mutuality in early childhood: Two behavioral genetic studies. Developmental Psychology, 36(5), 561–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.36.5.561

41.

de Mendonça

J. S.

Cossette

Strayer

F. F.

Gravel

. (2011). Mother-child and father-child interactional synchrony in dyadic and triadic interactions. Sex Roles, 64(1), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9875-2

42.

*Diken

I. H.

(2012). An exploration of interactional behaviors of Turkish mothers and their children with special Needs: Implications for early intervention practices. Education and Science, 37(163), 297–309.

43.

*Diken

Mahoney

(2013). Interactions between Turkish mothers and preschool children with autism. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 51(3), 190–200. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-51.3.190

44.

*Divan

Vajaratkar

Cardozo

Huzurbazar

Verma

Howarth

Emsley

Taylor

Patel

Green

(2019). The feasibility and effectiveness of PASS Plus, a lay health worker delivered comprehensive intervention for autism spectrum disorders: Pilot RCT in a rural low and middle income country setting. Autism Research, 12(2), 328–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1978

45.

*Dolev

Oppenheim

Koren-Karie

Yirmiya

(2009). Emotional availability in mother-child interaction: The case of children with autism spectrum disorders. Parenting: Science and Practice, 9(3–4), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295190902844332

46.

Dunham

P. J.

Dunham

Curwin

(1993). Joint-attentional states and lexical acquisition at 18 months. Developmental Psychology, 29(5), 827–831. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.29.5.827

47.

*Esposito

Venuti

(2009). Comparative analysis of crying in children with autism, developmental delays, and typical development. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 24(4), 240–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357609336449

48.

Eyberg

S. M.

(2013). Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System (DPICS): Comprehensive manual for research and training. PCIT International.

49.

Eyberg

S. M.

Nelson

M. M.

Duke

Boggs

S. R.

(2005). Manual for the Dyadic parent–child interaction coding system (3rd ed.) [Unpublished manuscript]. University of Florida.

50.

Feldman

(2007). Parent–infant synchrony and the construction of shared timing; physiological precursors, developmental outcomes, and risk conditions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(3–4), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01701.x

51.

*Flippin

Watson

L. R.

(2011). Relationships between the responsiveness of fathers and mothers and the object play skills of children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(3), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815111427445

52.

*Flippin

Watson

L. R.

(2015). Fathers’ and mothers’ verbal responsiveness and the language skills of young children with autism spectrum disorder. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 24(3), 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_ajslp-13-0138

53.

Fogel

(2009). What is a transaction?. In Sameroff

(Ed.), The transactional model of development: How children and contexts shape each other (pp. 271–280). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11877-014

54.

*Freeman

Kasari

(2013). Parent-child interactions in autism: Characteristics of play. Autism, 17(2), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361312469269

55.

Gardner

(2000). Methodological issues in the direct observation of parent–child interaction: Do observational findings reflect the natural behavior of participants? Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3(3), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1009503409699

56.

*Ginn

N. C.

Clionsky

L. N.

Eyberg

S. M.

Warner-Metzger

Abner

J. P.

(2017). Child-directed interaction training for young children with autism spectrum disorders: Parent and child outcomes. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 46(1), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2015.1015135

57.

*Green

Charman

McConachie

Aldred

Slonims

Howlin

Le Couteur

Leadbitter

Hudry

Byford

Barrett

Temple

Macdonald

Pickles

, & PACT Consortium. (2010). Parent-mediated communication-focused treatment in children with autism (PACT): A randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 375(9732), 2152–2160. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60587-9

58.

*Green

Charman

Pickles

Wan

M. W.

Elsabbagh

Slonims

Taylor

McNally

Booth

Gliga

Jones

E. J. H.

Harrop

Bedford

Johnson

M. H.

, & BASIS Team. (2015). Parent-mediated intervention versus no intervention for infants at high risk of autism: A parallel, single-blind, randomised trial. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2(2), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(14)00091-1

59.

*Green

Pickles

Pasco

Bedford

Wan

M. W.

Elsabbagh

Slonims

Gliga

Jones

Cheung

Charman

Johnson

, & British Autism Study of Infant Siblings (BASIS) Team. (2017). Randomised trial of a parent-mediated intervention for infants at high risk for autism: Longitudinal outcomes to age 3 years. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(12), 1330–1340. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12728

60.

*Gulsrud

A. C.

Jahromi

L. B.

Kasari

(2010). The co-regulation of emotions between mothers and their children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-009-0861-x

61.

*Guo

Garfin

D. R.

Goldberg

W. A.

(2017). Emotion coregulation in mother-child dyads: A dynamic systems analysis of children with and without autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 45(7), 1369–1383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-016-0234-9

62.

*Haebig

McDuffie

Weismer

S. E.

(2013a). Brief report: Parent verbal responsiveness and language development in toddlers on the autism spectrum. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43(9), 2218–2227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1763-5

63.

*Haebig

McDuffie

Weismer

S. E.

(2013b). The contribution of two categories of parent verbal responsiveness to later language for toddlers and preschoolers on the autism spectrum. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 22(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0004)

64.

*Harker

C. M.

Ibañez

L. V.

Nguyen

T. P.

Messinger

D. S.

Stone

W. L.

(2016). The effect of parenting style on social smiling in infants at high and low Risk for ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(7), 2399–2407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2772-y

65.

*Harrop

Gulsrud

Shih

Hovsepyan

Kasari

(2016). Characterizing caregiver responses to restricted and repetitive behaviors in toddlers with autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 20(3), 330–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361315580443

66.

*Harrop

Gulsrud

Shih

Hovsepyan

Kasari

(2017). The impact of caregiver-mediated JASPER on child restricted and repetitive behaviors and caregiver responses. Autism Research, 10(5), 983–992. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1732

67.

*Haven

E. L.

Manangan

C. N.

Sparrow

J. K.

Wilson

B. J.

(2014). The relation of parent–child interaction qualities to social skills in children with and without autism spectrum disorders. Autism, 18(3), 292–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361312470036

68.

*Hirschler-Guttenberg

Feldman

Ostfeld-Etzion

Laor

Golan

(2015). Self- and co-regulation of anger and fear in preschoolers with autism spectrum disorders: The role of maternal parenting style and temperament. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(9), 3004–3014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2464-z

69.

*Hirschler-Guttenberg

Golan

Ostfeld-Etzion

Feldman

(2015). Mothering, fathering, and the regulation of negative and positive emotions in high-functioning preschoolers with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56(5), 530–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12311

70.

*Hudry

Aldred

Wigham

Green

Leadbitter

Temple

Barlow

McConachie

(2013). Predictors of parent–child interaction style in dyads with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(10), 3400–3410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.07.015

71.

*Hutman

Siller

Sigman

(2009). Mothers’ narratives regarding their child with autism predict maternal synchronous behavior during play. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(10), 1255–1263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02109.x

72.

Ingersoll

Wainer

(2013). Initial efficacy of Project ImPACT: A parent-mediated social communication intervention for young children with ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43(12), 2943–2952. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1840-9

73.

*Kaale

Smith

Nordahl-Hansen

Fagerland

M. W.

Kasari

(2018). Early interaction in autism spectrum disorder: Mothers’ and children’s behaviours during joint engagement. Child: Care, Health and Development, 44(2), 312–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12532

74.

*Karaaslan

(2016). Comparison of social engagement of children having disabilities with their mothers and fathers. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 16(5), 1649–1670. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2016.5.0126

75.

*Kasari

Sigman

Mundy

Yirmiya

(1988). Caregiver interactions with autistic children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 16(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00910499

76.

*Kasari

Siller

Huynh

L. N.

Shih

Swanson

Hellemann

G. S.

Sugar

C. A.

(2014). Randomized controlled trial of parental responsiveness intervention for toddlers at high risk for autism. Infant Behavior and Development, 37(4), 711–721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2014.08.007

77.

*Kinard

J. L.

Sideris

Watson

L. R.

Baranek

G. T.

Crais

E. R.

Wakeford

Turner-Brown

(2017). Predictors of parent responsiveness to 1-year-olds at-risk for autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(1), 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2944-9

78.

*Koren-Karie

Oppenheim

Dolev

Yirmiya

(2009). Mothers of securely attached children with autism spectrum disorder are more sensitive than mothers of insecurely attached children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(5), 643–650. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02043.x

79.

*Ku

Heinonen

G. A.

MacDonald

Hatfield

(2019). An inquiry into how parents of children with autism spectrum disorder interact with their children in a motor skill-based play setting. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 94, 103494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2019.103494

80.

*Lambert-Brown

B. L.

McDonald

N. M.

Mattson

W. I.

Martin

K. B.

Ibañez

L. V.

Stone

W. L.

Messinger

D. S.

(2015). Positive emotional engagement and autism risk. Developmental Psychology, 51(6), 848–855. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039182

81.

Landry

S. H.

Smith

K. E.

Swank

P. R.

(2006). Responsive parenting: Establishing early foundations for social, communication, and independent problem-solving skills. Developmental Psychology, 42(4), 627–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.4.627

82.

*Laurent

A. C.

Gorman

(2018). Development of emotion self-regulation among young children with autism spectrum disorders: The role of parents. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(4), 1249–1260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3430-8

83.

*Leezenbaum

N. B.

Campbell

S. B.

Butler

Iverson

J. M.

(2014). Maternal verbal responses to communication of infants at low and heightened risk of autism. Autism, 18(6), 694–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361313491327

84.

*Lemanek

K. L.

Stone

W. L.

Fishel

P. T.

(1993). Parent-child interactions in handicapped preschoolers: The relation between parent behaviors and compliance. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2201_7

85.

*Losh

Tipton

L. A.

Eisenhower

Blacher

(2019). Parenting behaviors as predictive of early student–teacher relationships in ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(9), 3582–3591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-04065-2

86.

Lotzin

Kriston

Schiborr

Musal

Romer

Ramsauer

(2015). Observational tools for measuring parent–infant interaction: A systematic review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 18(2), 99–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-015-0180-z

87.

*Mahoney

Perales

(2003). Using relationship-focused intervention to enhance the social-emotional functioning of young children with autism spectrum disorders. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23(2), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/02711214030230020301

88.

*Mahoney

Perales

(2005). Relationship-focused early intervention with children with pervasive developmental disorders and other disabilities: A comparative study. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 26(2), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004703-200504000-00002

89.

Mahoney

Powell

Finger

(1986). The maternal behavior rating scale. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 6(2), 44–56.

90.

*Mahoney

Solomon

(2016). Mechanism of developmental change in the PLAY Project Home Consultation Program: Evidence from a randomized control trial. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(5), 1860–1871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2720-x

91.

*Mahoney

Wheeden

C. A.

Perales

(2004). Relationship of preschool special education outcomes to instructional practices and parent-child interaction. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 25(6), 539–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2004.04.001

92.

*McConachie

Randle

Hammal

Le Couteur

(2005). A controlled trial of a training course for parents of children with suspected autism spectrum disorder. The Journal of Pediatrics, 147(3), 335–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2005.03.056

93.

*McDuffie

Yoder

(2010). Types of parent verbal responsiveness that predict language in young children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53(4), 1026–1039. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2009/09-0023)

94.

*Meirsschaut

Warreyn

Roeyers

(2011). What is the impact of autism on mother–child interactions within families with a child with autism spectrum disorder? Autism Research, 4(5), 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.217

95.

Mesman

(2010). Maternal responsiveness to infants: Comparing micro-and macro-level measures. Attachment & Human Development, 12(1–2), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730903484763

96.

*Muratori

Apicella

Muratori

Maestro

(2011). Intersubjective disruptions and caregiver-infant interaction in early autistic disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(1), 408–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2010.06.003

97.

*Oppenheim

Koren-Karie

Dolev

Yirmiya

(2012). Maternal sensitivity mediates the link between maternal insightfulness/resolution and child–mother attachment: The case of children with autism spectrum disorder. Attachment & Human Development, 14(6), 567–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2012.727256

98.

*Ostfeld-Etzion

Feldman

Hirschler-Guttenberg

Laor

Golan

(2016). Self-regulated compliance in preschoolers with autism spectrum disorder: The role of temperament and parental disciplinary style. Autism, 20(7), 868–878. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361315615467

99.

*Ozcaliskan

Adamson

L. B.

Dimitrova

Baumann

(2018). Do parents model gestures differently when children’s gestures differ? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(5), 1492–1507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3411-y

100.

*Papoulidi

Papaeliou

C. F.

Samartzi

(2017). Rhythm in interactions between children with autism spectrum disorder and their mothers. Timing & Time Perception, 5(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134468-00002082

101.

*Parladé

M. V.

Weinstein

Garcia

Rowley

A. M.

Ginn

N. C.

Jent

J. F.

(2020). Parent–Child Interaction Therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder and a matched case-control sample. Autism, 24, 160–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361319855851

102.

*Patterson

S. Y.

Elder

Gulsrud

Kasari

(2014). The association between parental interaction style and children’s joint engagement in families with toddlers with autism. Autism, 18(5), 511–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361313483595

103.

*Perryman

T. Y.

Carter

A. S.

Messinger

D. S.

Stone

W. L.

Ivanescu

A. E.

Yoder

P. J.

(2013). Parental child-directed speech as a predictor of receptive language in children with autism symptomatology. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43(8), 1983–1987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1725-3

104.

Pew Research Center. (2018). Are you in the American middle class? Find out with our income calculator. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/23/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/

105.

*Poslawsky

I. E.

Naber

F. B. A.

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J.

van Daalen

van Engeland

van Ijzendoorn

M. H.

(2015). Video-feedback Intervention to promote Positive Parenting adapted to Autism (VIPP-AUTI): A randomized controlled trial. Autism, 19(5), 588–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361314537124

106.

*Rogers

S. J.

Estes

Lord

Vismara

Winter

Fitzpatrick

Guo

Dawson

(2012). 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 & Adolescent Psychiatry, 51(10), 1052–1065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2012.08.003

107.

Roggman

L. A.

Cook

G. A.

Innocenti

M. S.

Jump Norman

Christiansen

(2013). Parenting interactions with children: Checklist of observations linked to outcomes (PICCOLO) in diverse ethnic groups. Infant Mental Health Journal, 34(4), 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21389

108.

*Ruble

McDuffie

King

A. S.

Lorenz

(2008). Caregiver responsiveness and social interaction behaviors of young children with autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28(3), 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121408323009

109.

*Schwichtenberg

A. J.

Kellerman

A. M.

Young

G. S.

Miller

Ozonoff

(2019). Mothers of children with autism spectrum disorders: Play behaviors with infant siblings and social responsiveness. Autism, 23(4), 821–833. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361318782220

110.

*Scudder

Wong

Ober

Hoffman

Toscolani

Handen

B. L.

(2019). Parent–Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) in young children with autism spectrum disorder. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 41(4), 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317107.2019.1659542

111.

*Shire

S. Y.

Gulsrud

Kasari

(2016). Increasing responsive parent–child interactions and joint engagement: Comparing the influence of parent-mediated intervention and parent psychoeducation. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(5), 1737–1747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2702-z

112.

Siller

Hotez

Swanson

Delavenne

Hutman

Sigman

(2018). Parent coaching increases the parents’ capacity for reflection and self-evaluation: Results from a clinical trial in autism. Attachment & Human Development, 20(3), 287–308.

113.

*Siller

Hutman

Sigman

(2013). A parent-mediated intervention to increase responsive parental behaviors and child communication in children with ASD: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43(3), 540–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1584-y

114.

*Siller

Sigman

(2002). The behaviors of parents of children with autism predict the subsequent development of their children’s communication. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32(2), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014884404276

115.

Siller

Sigman

(2008). Modeling longitudinal change in the language abilities of children with autism: Parent behaviors and child characteristics as predictors of change. Developmental Psychology, 44(6), 1691–1704. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013771

116.

*Solomon

Van Egeren

L. A.

Mahoney

Quon Huber

M. S.

Zimmerman

(2014). PLAY Project Home Consultation intervention program for young children with autism spectrum disorders: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 35(8), 475–485. https://doi.org/10.1097/dbp.0000000000000096

117.

Sosinsky

L. S.

Marakovitz

Carter

A. S.

(2004). Parent-Child Interaction Rating Scales (PCIRS) [Unpublished manual]. University of Massachusetts Boston.

118.

*Stadnick

N. A.

Stahmer

Brookman-Frazee

(2015). Preliminary effectiveness of Project ImPACT: A parent-mediated intervention for children with autism spectrum disorder delivered in a community program. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(7), 2092–2104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2376-y

119.

*Stahmer

A. C.

Rieth

S. R.

Dickson

K. S.

Feder

Burgeson

Searcy

Brookman-Frazee

(2020). Project ImPACT for toddlers: Pilot outcomes of a community adaptation of an intervention for autism risk. Autism, 24, 617–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361319878080

120.

*Steiner

A. M.

Gengoux

G. W.

Smith

Chawarska

(2018). Parent–child interaction synchrony for infants at-risk for autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(10), 3562–3572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3624-8

121.

*Strid

Heimann

Tjus

(2013). Pretend play, deferred imitation and parent-child interaction in speaking and non-speaking children with autism. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54(1), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12003

122.

*Talbott

M. R.

Nelson

C. A.

Tager-Flusberg

(2016). Maternal vocal feedback to 9-month-old infant siblings of children with ASD. Autism Research, 9(4), 460–470. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1521

123.

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

Bornstein

M. H.

Baumwell

(2001). Maternal responsiveness and children’s achievement of language milestones. Child Development, 72(3), 748–767. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00313

124.

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

Rodriquez

Shannon

Hannibal

Ahuja

Spellman

(2002). Caregiver-Child Affect, Responsiveness, and Engagement Scales (C-CARES) fourteen month version. New York University.

125.

*Tipton

L. A.

Blacher

J. B.

Eisenhower

A. S.

(2017). Young children with ASD: Parent strategies for interaction during adapted book reading activity. Remedial and Special Education, 38(3), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516677831

126.

Tomasello

Farrar

M. J.

(1986). Joint attention and early language. Child Development, 57, 1454–1463. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130423

127.

Tricco

A. C.

Lillie

Zarin

O’Brien

K. K.

Colquhoun

Levac

Moher

Peters

Horsley

Weeks

Hempel

Akl

E. A.

Chang

McGowan

Stewart

Hartling

Aldcroft

Wilson

M. G.

Garritty

. . . Straus

S. E.

(2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

128.

Uzonyi

T. E.

Crais

E. R.

Watson

L. R.

Nowell

S. W.

Baranek

G. T.

Turner-Brown

L. M.

(2021). Measuring transactional engagement among young children with elevated likelihood for later autism spectrum disorder diagnosis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-05124-3

129.

Van Egeren

L. A.

Barratt

M. S.

Roach

M. A

. (2001). Mother–infant responsiveness: Timing, mutual regulation, and interactional context. Developmental Psychology, 37(5), 684–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.5.684

130.

Venker

C. E.

McDuffie

Ellis Weismer

Abbeduto

(2012). Increasing verbal responsiveness in parents of children with autism: A pilot study. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 16(6), 568–585. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361311413396

131.

Vernon

T. W.

(2014). Fostering a social child with autism: A moment-by-moment sequential analysis of an early social engagement intervention. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(12), 3072–3082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2173-z

132.

*Wachtel

Carter

A. S.

(2008). Reaction to diagnosis and parenting styles among mothers of young children with ASDs. Autism, 12(5), 575–594. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361308094505

133.

*Walton

K. M.

Ingersoll

B. R.

(2015). The influence of maternal language responsiveness on the expressive speech production of children with autism spectrum disorders: A microanalysis of mother–child play interactions. Autism, 19(4), 421–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361314523144

134.

*Wan

M. W.

Green

Elsabbagh

Johnson

Charman

Plummer

(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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12032

135.

*Wan

M. W.

Green

Elsabbagh

Johnson

Charman

Plummer

, & BASIS Team. (2012). Parent–infant interaction in infant siblings at risk of autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33(3), 924–932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.12.011

136.

*Watson

L. R.

Crais

E. R.

Baranek

G. T.

Turner-Brown

Sideris

Wakeford

Kinard

Reznick

J. S.

Martin

K. L.

Nowell

S. W.

(2017). Parent-mediated intervention for one-year-olds screened as at-risk for autism spectrum disorder: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(11), 3520–3540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3268-0

137.

Watson

S. L.

Coons

K. D.

Hayes

S. A.

(2013). Autism spectrum disorder and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Part I: A comparison of parenting stress. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 38(2), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2013.788136

138.

Wetherby

A. M.

Morgan

Holland

(2013). Measure of active engagement and transactional supports [Unpublished manual]. Florida State University.

139.

*Woynaroski

Watson

Gardner

Newsom

C. R.

Keceli-Kaysili

Yoder

P. J.

(2016). Early predictors of growth in diversity of key consonants used in communication in initially preverbal children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(3), 1013–1024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2647-7

140.

*Yang

Y. H.

(2016). Parents and young children with disabilities: The effects of a home-based music therapy program on parent-child interactions. Journal of Music Therapy, 53(1), 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/thv018

141.

Yoder

P. J.

Lloyd

B. P.

Symons

F. J.

(2018). Observational measurement of behavior (2nd ed.). Paul H. Brookes.

142.

Yoder

P. J.

Watson

L. R.

Lambert

(2015). Value-added predictors of expressive and receptive language growth in initially nonverbal preschoolers with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(5), 1254–1270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2286-4

143.

*Zlomke

K. R.

Bauman

Edwards

G. S

. (2019). An exploratory study of the utility of the dyadic parent-child interaction coding system for children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 31(4), 501–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-018-9648-3

144.

*Zlomke

K. R.

Jeter

Murphy

(2017). Open-trial pilot of parent-child interaction therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 39(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317107.2016.1267999

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.08 MB

0.02 MB

0.04 MB

0.01 MB

0.02 MB

0.04 MB

0.07 MB