EDP3004

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rasd

Writing research involving children with autism spectrum disorder
without a co-occurring intellectual disability: A systematic review
using a language domains and mediational systems framework
Matthew Carl Zajic*, Sarah Emily Wilson
Curry School of Education and Human Development, University of Virginia, P.O. Box 800784, Charlottesville, VA 22904, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords:
Autism spectrum disorder
Education
Handwriting
Language
School-age
Spelling
Systematic review
Writing

A B S T R A C T

Background: Descriptive and intervention research studies have identified writing as a challenge
for many students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, relatively little remains
known about how these studies have examined specific writing skills, particularly from a writing
research perspective. This study systematically reviewed descriptive and intervention studies
using a language domains and mediational systems framework to examine how studies have
examined transcription (handwriting and spelling) and translation/text generation (written ex-
pression) skills and associations between writing skills with language domain and mediational
systems skills. Study quality indicators including reference to writing research and theory were
also examined.
Method: From an initial screening of 1,958 records, 46 studies (29 descriptive and 17 inter-
vention) were retained for inclusion. Studies were coded for study characteristics, quality in-
dicators, and reported writing and writing-associated skills.
Results: Studies included 1,166 participants who were predominantly male with a verified ASD
diagnosis but varied on other characteristics. Study quality was low for certain indicators (i.e.,
power analysis and generalization), and fewer studies referenced writing theory compared to
writing research. Studies reported on different writing skills (transcription: 52%; translation/text
generation: 70%) but infrequently reported on associations with language domains (0–7%) and
mediational systems (24–43%).
Conclusions: Studies have focused predominantly on assessing transcription or translation/text
generation skills with little systematic attention to relationships between writing and language
domain or mediational systems skills. Reviewed studies offer preliminary findings, areas of
needed future research, and implications for continued research into understanding and sup-
porting the writing skill development of children with ASD.

1. Introduction

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental difference that affects social communication and social cognition with
the presence of repetitive and restrictive behaviors and interests (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Within the burgeoning
area of academic-based research involving children with ASD, school-age children with ASD demonstrate heterogeneous academic
development profiles (Bauminger-Zviely, 2013, 2014; Estes, Rivera, Bryan, Cali, & Dawson, 2011; Fleury et al., 2014; Keen, Webster,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2019.101471
Received 24 February 2019; Received in revised form 9 October 2019; Accepted 28 October 2019

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.C. Zajic), [email protected] (S.E. Wilson).

Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471

Available online 11 December 2019
1750-9467/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

T

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/17509467

https://www.elsevier.com/locate/rasd

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2019.101471

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2019.101471

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2019.101471

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.rasd.2019.101471&domain=pdf

& Ridley, 2016; Kim, Paul, Tager-Flusberg, & Lord, 2014; Mundy & Mastergeorge, 2012; Simpson & Myles, 2016). Research focused
on content-area development has remained limited and has typically examined reading and mathematics development (e.g., Jones
et al., 2009), leaving questions about writing development often overlooked and unanswered (Bauminger-Zviely, 2014; Corbett &
Iqbal, 2018; Keen et al., 2016; Zajic & Asaro-Saddler, 2019) despite the importance of writing in other academic areas and across the
lifespan (e.g., Graham, 2006, 2018).

A limited number of studies have examined the writing development of children with ASD (e.g., Asaro-Saddler, 2015; Finnegan &
Accardo, 2018; Kushki, Chau, & Anagnostou, 2011; Pennington & Delano, 2012). Children with ASD show challenges with hand-
writing and graphomotor skills (Kushki et al., 2011) as well as with text generation (Brown, Johnson, Smyth, & Oram Cardy, 2014;
Mayes & Calhoun, 2003b, 2008; Myles et al., 2003; Zajic et al., 2018). Intervention research has emphasized multicomponent
approaches that draw from evidence-based practices (EBPs) based on recommendations across ASD and writing research (Accardo,
Finnegan, Kuder, & Bomgardner, 2019; Asaro-Saddler, 2015, 2016; Pennington & Delano, 2012).

Inquiry into how research has assessed the writing skills of children with ASD has received less systematic attention. The complex,
multifaceted nature of writing has been poorly addressed in the available literature with studies having noted infrequent guidance
from writing research and theory (i.e., Dockrell, Ricketts, Charman, & Lindsay, 2014; Zajic et al., 2018; Zajic, Dunn, & Berninger,
2019). This study reviews the available empirical literature using a language domains and mediational systems framework
(Berninger, 2015) to examine 1) how studies have assessed writing and closely related skills of school-age children with ASD, and 2)
if studies have included references to relevant writing research and theory.

1.1. Reviews of academic and writing abilities of children with ASD

Several reviews have synthesized findings related to the writing skills of individuals with ASD. In a review of six studies in
children with ASD without a co-occurring intellectual disability, Whitby and Mancil (2009) reported children appeared more at risk
for higher-order rather than lower-order academic challenges and that cognitive abilities (i.e., FIQ) predicted academic achievement.
Though writing showed similar relationships to FIQ, writing differentiated from other skills with children showing lower-order
(handwriting) and higher-order (written expression) challenges. In their review of 19 studies, Keen et al. (2016) reported that
children showed variable strengths and weaknesses, and academic performance was positively associated with cognitive abilities and
negatively associated with ASD symptom severity. Keen et al. (2016) further acknowledged the positive relationship between FIQ and
writing (for written expression but not for spelling) and highlighted writing when discussing uneven patterns of achievement (i.e.,
children performed better at spelling than writing). However, overall takeaways often did not generalize to writing skills (e.g., no
studies examined the relationship between ASD symptom severity and writing skills).

Additional reviews have provided further insights into writing development and writing instruction. In a review of seven
handwriting studies, Kushki et al. (2011) reported positive associations between fine motor and handwriting development, noting
consistent handwriting challenges in legibility and formation. In a review of 15 intervention studies, Pennington and Delano (2012)
emphasized explicit writing instruction in the absence of ASD-specific EBPs. In a review of 11 studies, Asaro-Saddler (2016) found
that self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) improved the writing quality of elementary-age students with ASD who struggled
with writing. In a meta-analysis of 13 studies, Finnegan and Accardo (2018) reported lower performance in spelling, handwriting
(legibility, size, and speed), and composition length and overall structure for individuals with ASD compared to typically developing
(TD) peers. In a research synthesis of 24 single-case design studies, Accardo et al. (2019) identified several effective features of
instructional writing packages that have been used with children with ASD (i.e., combinations of visual, motivational, choice,
technology, behavioral, peer, auditory, and tactile supports).

One issue not captured by prior reviews is the extent to which past research has accounted for the multifaceted nature of writing.
Recent studies have highlighted this concern by suggesting researchers have included few references to writing research and theory
(i.e., Dockrell et al., 2014; Zajic et al., 2018, 2019). Addressing concerns about how writing skills are studied in children with ASD
can benefit future designs across descriptive and intervention studies. However, available reviews have often focused on either
descriptive (Finnegan & Accardo, 2018; Keen et al., 2016; Kushki et al., 2011; Whitby & Mancil, 2009) or intervention studies
(Accardo et al., 2019; Asaro-Saddler, 2016; Pennington & Delano, 2012). A more comprehensive approach is needed.

1.2. Writing development and associated language domains and mediational systems

Writing is a challenging, complex skill that has existed for over 6000 years (Graham, 2006). Writing contains two core com-
ponents: transcription and translation/text generation (Fayol, Alamargot, & Berninger, 2012). Transcription involves transcribing
what an individual wants to communicate via written symbols and includes skills like handwriting, keyboarding, and spelling
(Graham, 2006). Translation/text generation functions within the mind to transform ideas and cognitive representations into written
language (Fayol et al., 2012; Hayes & Berninger, 2014) .

Often overlooked linguistic, cognitive, and social processes that dynamically change throughout the lifespan (Berninger, 2015;
Graham, 2018; Hayes & Berninger, 2014) support these writing skills (e.g., Myhill & Fisher, 2010). Linguistic research highlights the
challenge of translating ideas into written form to meet different writing tasks by focusing on the influences from additional language
skills (Berninger, 2009; Neef, 2012). Sociocultural research posits writing as a learned social technology produced for social cir-
cumstances to communicate among people across contexts (Bazerman, 2015). Psychological research focuses on the cognitive pro-
cesses required for confronting writing as problem-solving tasks across different contexts (Hayes & Berninger, 2014; Hayes & Flower,
1980; MacArthur & Graham, 2015). Given the processes involved, writing challenges are common for many students. A large body of

M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471

2

literature has focused on the identification of writing challenges in children with specific learning disabilities (SLDs; Swanson, Harris,
& Graham, 2014). Frameworks helpful to understanding the challenges faced by children with SLDs (e.g., Connelly & Dockrell, 2016)
may offer approaches to conceptualizing the writing development of children with ASD who often show similar difficulties for
different reasons (e.g., Mayes, Breaux, Calhoun, & Frye, 2017; Price, Lacey, Weaver, & Ogletree, 2017; Zajic et al., 2019).

One comprehensive framework for understanding written language development in children with SLDs is a language domain and
mediational systems framework (Berninger, 2000, 2009, 2015; Silliman & Berninger, 2011). The language domains include language
by hand (writing), language by eye (reading), language by mouth (oral language), and language by ear (listening comprehension).
Relationships between language domains begin during early development and adapt as well as influence each other across the school-
age years (Berninger, 2000, 2015; Berninger & Abbott, 2010; Berninger & Richards, 2002; Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000; Shanahan,
2006, 2015). Four underlying mediational systems support language domain development: sensorimotor; social, emotional, and
motivational (SEM); cognition, and attention/executive functions (Berninger, 2015; James, Jao, & Berninger, 2016; Silliman &
Berninger, 2011). The sensorimotor system receives information from the surrounding environments via the ears and eyes and acts
upon them via the mouth and hands. The SEM system manages how individuals develop, manage, and experience emotions and
motivations along with how they navigate relationships with others across environments. The cognition system focuses on the
facilitation of learning via broader mental processes (i.e., intellectual abilities and memory). The attention/executive functions
system helps individuals attend to their environments and regulate their actions across contexts via lower- (i.e., supervisory atten-
tion) and higher-order (e.g., self-regulation) processes.

1.3. Current study

This study adopts the language domains and mediational systems framework to review available empirical research about the
writing development of individuals with ASD. This study examines how descriptive and intervention research studies have assessed
writing skills (i.e., transcription and translation/text generation) along with associated language domain (i.e., reading, listening, and
oral language) and mediational system skills (i.e., sensorimotor, SEM, cognition, and attention/executive functions). In addition to
assessing for general study quality, this study created quality indicators for quantifying how studies have referred to writing research
and theory.

2. Method

2.1. Selection of studies and inclusion criteria

Best practices for surveying the literature were followed to allow for a comprehensive search (Cooper, 2016). Record identifi-
cation and screening were completed in line with the systematic process outlined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & The PRISMA Group, 2009; see Fig. 1). Authors conducted
an electronic search of four large journal databases (Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO, Education Resources Information Center,
and PubMed) using Boolean search terms—(autism* OR asperg*) AND (handwrit* OR spell* OR writ*)—within the title, abstract,
and keyword search fields. Manual searches were conducted via reference lists of previously mentioned reviews and meta-analyses.
Comprehensive searching was completed in February 2019.

Titles, abstracts, and full texts were assessed for inclusion based on criteria found in Fig. 1. Criteria c (included at least one
dependent writing skill measure assessed in English) and g (included at least one participant without a co-occurring intellectual
disability or severe communication difficulty [ID/SCD]) were included to narrow assessment and participant heterogeneity. As
different language systems rely on different orthographies (e.g., Berninger, 1994), this review included studies that used English-
based writing assessments (as accounting for different language systems fell beyond the scope of this review). As the cognitive and
communicative profiles of children with ASD are heterogeneous (e.g., Kim et al., 2014; Klinger, Mussey, & O’Kelley, 2018) and can
impact decisions made about academic programming and instruction (e.g., Pennington & Carpenter, 2019; Simpson & Myles, 2016),
this review focused on participants who did not demonstrate a co-occurring ID/SCD. However, excluding studies based on these
criteria can bias reported findings, and considerations are offered in the limitations section.

2.2. Study quality and characteristics

All studies were assessed for study quality and inclusion of writing research or theory (Table 1). Quality indicators for descriptive
studies were adapted from Finnegan and Accardo (2018) and for intervention studies were adapted from Accardo et al. (2019). One
intervention study was coded using descriptive rather than intervention quality indicators due to not using a single-case study
research design. Categories for inclusion of writing research and inclusion of writing theory were created to examine if studies
referenced either broader writing research findings (i.e., not involving children with ASD) or theoretical writing frameworks. Studies
were coded for inclusion of either (i.e., at least one reference) in the introduction and discussion sections. Authors independently
coded studies for all quality indicators and discussed disagreements until consensus.

Authors extracted additional data about study characteristics and skill assessment, including research design, journal titles and
research areas, ASD group demographics, included comparison group(s), and ASD symptom severity and IQ assessment information.
See Tables 2 and 3 for study characteristic information and study quality summaries.

M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471

3

2.3. Language domains and mediational systems framework

Studies were categorized based on inclusion of written language outcomes for transcription skills (i.e., spelling and/or hand-
writing) and translation/text generation skills (i.e., written expression). If transcription was assessed during a translation/text
generation task (e.g., spelling performance assessed during a timed, genre-based writing task), then the study was coded as

Fig. 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; Moher et al., 2009) flowchart for record identification,
screening, and eligibility assessment.

M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471

4

T
ab

le
1

Q
ua
lit
y
in
di
ca
to
rs
fo
r
st
ud
y
qu
al
it
y
an
d
in
cl
us
io
n
of

w
ri
ti
ng

th
eo
ry

an
d
re
se
ar
ch
.

D
es
cr
ip
ti
ve

St
ud
y
Q
ua
lit
y
In
di
ca
to
rs
1

In
te
rv
en
ti
on

St
ud
y
Q
ua
lit
y
In
di
ca
to
rs
2
,3

W
ri
ti
ng

Th
eo
ry

an
d
R
es
ea
rc
h
Q
ua
lit
y
In
di
ca
to
rs

In
di
ca
to
r

D
es
cr
ip
ti
on

(S
co
re
)

In
di
ca
to
r

D
es
cr
ip
ti
on

(S
co
re
)

In
di
ca
to
r

D
es
cr
ip
ti
on

(S
co
re
)

C
om

pa
ra
bl
e
gr
ou
ps

–
G
ro
up
s
w
er
e
sa
m
e
si
ze
,a
nd
/o
r
m
ea
su
re
s
w
er
e

ta
ke
n
to

en
su
re

gr
ou
ps

w
er
e
co
m
pa
ra
bl
e
(1
).

R
el
ia
bi
lit
y
of

m
ea
su
re
s

–
R
el
ia
bi
lit
y
re
po
rt
in
g
gr
ea
te
r
th
an

0.
80

re
po
rt
ed

fo
r
so
m
e
m
ea
su
re
s
(0
.5
).

–
R
el
ia
bi
lit
y
re
po
rt
in
g
gr
ea
te
r
th
an

0.
80

fo
r
al
l

m
ea
su
re
s
(1
).

W
ri
ti
ng

th
eo
ry

(I
nt
ro
du
ct
io
n)

–
In
cl
ud
ed

at
le
as
t
on
e
ci
ta
ti
on

in
th
e

in
tr
od
uc
ti
on

to
a
th
eo
re
ti
ca
l
w
ri
ti
ng

fr
am

ew
or
k
(1
).

A
ge

–
Th

e
m
ea
n
ag
e
of

th
e
pa
rt
ic
ip
an
ts
in

th
e

co
m
pa
ri
so
n
gr
ou
ps

w
as

no
t
si
gn
ifi
ca
nt
ly

di
ff
er
en
t
(1
).

Fi
de
lit
y
of
tr
ea
tm

en
t

–
D
at
a
w
er
e
pr
ov
id
ed

ev
id
en
ci
ng

th
e
tr
ea
tm

en
t

w
as

ad
m
in
is
te
re
d
as

in
te
nd
ed

w
it
h
in
te
gr
it
y

(h
ig
he
r
th
an

0.
80

fi
de
lit
y
re
po
rt
in
g)

(1
).

W
ri
ti
ng

re
se
ar
ch

(I
nt
ro
du
ct
io
n)

–
In
cl
ud
ed

at
le
as
t
on
e
ci
ta
ti
on

in
th
e

in
tr
od
uc
ti
on

to
re
se
ar
ch

on
w
ri
ti
ng

de
ve
lo
pm

en
t
in

ch
ild

re
n
w
it
ho
ut

A
SD

(1
).

El
ig
ib
ili
ty

–
D
ia
gn
os
ti
c
in
fo
rm

at
io
n
w
as

us
ed

to
de
te
rm

in
e

if
pa
rt
ic
ip
an
ts
m
et

cr
it
er
ia
fo
r
st
ud
y
in
cl
us
io
n

(1
).

Fu
nc
ti
on
al
re
la
ti
on

–
D
es
ig
n
ha
d
po
te
nt
ia
l
to

de
m
on
st
ra
te

ex
pe
ri
m
en
ta
l
co
nt
ro
l
(1
).

W
ri
ti
ng

th
eo
ry

(D
is
cu
ss
io
n)

–
In
cl
ud
ed

at
le
as
t
on
e
ci
ta
ti
on

in
th
e

di
sc
us
si
on

to
a
th
eo
re
ti
ca
l
w
ri
ti
ng

fr
am

ew
or
k
(1
).

Tr
ea
tm

en
t
fi
de
lit
y

–
Pa
rt
ic
ip
an
ts
ac
ro
ss
gr
ou
ps

w
er
e
tr
ea
te
d

co
ns
is
te
nt
ly

an
d
te
st
ed

in
si
m
ila
r
se
tt
in
gs

(1
).

B
as
el
in
e
st
ab
ili
ty

–
Pr
ov
id
ed

ev
id
en
ce

of
a
st
ab
le
pa
tt
er
n
w
it
h

th
re
e
da
ta

po
in
ts
(0
.5
).

–
Pr
ov
id
ed

ev
id
en
ce

of
a
st
ab
le
pa
tt
er
n
w
it
h

fi
ve

or
m
or
e
da
ta

po
in
ts
(1
).

W
ri
ti
ng

re
se
ar
ch

(D
is
cu
ss
io
n)

–
In
cl
ud
ed

at
le
as
t
on
e
ci
ta
ti
on

in
th
e

di
sc
us
si
on

to
re
se
ar
ch

on
w
ri
ti
ng

de
ve
lo
pm

en
t
in

ch
ild

re
n
w
it
ho
ut

A
SD

(1
).

R
an
do
m

se
le
ct
io
n

–
Pa
rt
ic
ip
an
ts
w
er
e
ra
nd
om

ly
se
le
ct
ed

fr
om

a
la
rg
er

re
pr
es
en
ta
ti
ve

gr
ou
p
(1
).

C
ei
lin

g
eff
ec
t

–
N
o
ce
ili
ng

eff
ec
ts
pr
es
en
t
du
ri
ng

ba
se
lin

e
or

in
te
rv
en
ti
on

(1
).

Te
st
er
s

–
St
ud
y
in
di
ca
te
s
w
he
th
er

te
st
er
s
w
er
e
qu
al
ifi
ed

an
d/
or

tr
ai
ne
d
(1
).

M
ai
nt
en
an
ce

–
St
ud
y
in
cl
ud
ed

as
se
ss
m
en
t
of

m
ai
nt
en
an
ce

of
th
e
in
te
rv
en
ti
on

(1
).

N
um

be
rs

–
Pa
rt
ic
ip
an
ts
in

gr
ou
ps

re
ce
iv
ed

a
co
m
pa
ra
bl
e

nu
m
be
r
of

te
st
s
(1
).

Tr
ai
ni
ng

of
in
te
rv
en
ti
on
is
t

–
In
te
rv
en
ti
on
is
t
re
ce
iv
ed

pr
of
es
si
on
al

de
ve
lo
pm

en
t
or

w
as

a
kn
ow

n
ex
pe
rt
(1
).

M
ea
su
re
s

–
St
ud
y
ca
n
be

re
pl
ic
at
ed

w
it
h
sa
m
e
ou
tc
om

e
m
ea
su
re
s
(1
).

Fl
oo
r
eff
ec
t

–
N
o
fl
oo
r
eff
ec
ts
pr
es
en
t
du
ri
ng

ba
se
lin

e
or

in
te
rv
en
ti
on

(1
).

R
el
ia
bi
lit
y

–
St
an
da
rd
iz
ed

te
st
s
w
er
e
us
ed

or
in
te
rr
at
er

re
lia
bi
lit
y
w
as

re
po
rt
ed

(1
).

So
ci
al
va
lid

it
y

–
St
ud
y
in
cl
ud
ed

as
se
ss
m
en
t
of

so
ci
al
va
lid

it
y

of
th
e
in
te
rv
en
ti
on

(1
).

V
al
id
it
y

–
Ev
id
en
ce

pr
ov
id
ed

th
at

m
ea
su
re
s
w
er
e
va
lid

(1
).

G
en
er
al
iz
at
io
n

–
St
ud
y
in
cl
ud
ed

as
se
ss
m
en
t
of

ge
ne
ra
liz
at
io
n

of
th
e
in
te
rv
en
ti
on

(1
).

Te
ch
ni
qu
es

–
A
na
ly
si
s
lin

ke
d
to

re
se
ar
ch

qu
es
ti
on
s
(1
).

R
el
at
io
ns
hi
p

be
tw
ee
n

va
ri
ab
le
s

–
In
te
ra
ct
io
n
eff
ec
ts
an
d/
or

co
rr
el
at
io
n
sc
or
es

w
er
e
re
po
rt
ed

to
in
di
ca
te
w
he
th
er

or
no
t
th
er
e

w
er
e
re
la
ti
on
sh
ip
s
be
tw
ee
n
th
e
va
ri
ab
le
s
(1
).

D
at
a
re
po
rt
in
g

–
A
de
qu
at
e
da
ta

re
po
rt
ed
,i
nc
lu
di
ng

ge
nd
er

an
d

ag
e
of

pa
rt
ic
ip
an
ts
(1
).

D
ir
ec
ti
on
al
it
y

–
D
ir
ec
ti
on

of
ou
tc
om

e
m
ea
su
re
s
gi
ve
n,

if
ap
pl
ic
ab
le
(1
).

Po
w
er

an
al
ys
is

–
Po
w
er
an
al
ys
is
co
nd
uc
te
d
to
de
te
rm

in
e
sa
m
pl
e

si
ze

(o
r
m
en
ti
on

of
sa
m
pl
e
si
ze

as
lim

it
at
io
n)

(1
).

1
A
da
pt
ed

fr
om

Fi
nn
eg
an

an
d
A
cc
ar
do

(2
01
8)
.

2
A
da
pt
ed

fr
om

A
cc
ar
do

et
al
.
(2
01
9)
.

3
O
ne

in
te
rv
en
ti
on

st
ud
y
(A
sa
ro
-S
ad
dl
er
et
al
.,
20
15
)
di
d
no
tu
se
a
si
ng
le
-c
as
e
de
si
gn

ap
pr
oa
ch
.Q

ua
lit
y
w
as
as
se
ss
ed

us
in
g
de
sc
ri
pt
iv
e
st
ud
y
qu
al
it
y
in
di
ca
to
rs
in
st
ea
d
of
in
te
rv
en
ti
on

qu
al
it
y
in
di
ca
to
rs
,

as
th
os
e
in
di
ca
to
rs
w
er
e
or
ig
in
al
ly

de
ve
lo
pe
d
ba
se
d
on

ex
pe
ri
m
en
ta
l
an
d
qu
as
i-
ex
pe
ri
m
en
ta
l
re
se
ar
ch

de
si
gn
s
(s
ee

Fi
nn
eg
an

&
A
cc
ar
do
,
20
18
).

M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471

5

T
ab

le
2

D
es
cr
ip
ti
ve

st
ud
y
ch
ar
ac
te
ri
st
ic
s
an
d
qu
al
it
y
in
di
ca
to
rs
.

St
ud
y

Jo
ur
na
l
A
re
a

A
SD

G
ro
up

C
om

pa
ri
so
n
G
ro
up
(s
)

D
ir
ec
tl
y
A
ss
es
se
d

A
SD

?
A
ss
es
se
d/
R
ep
or
te
d

IQ
/A

bi
lit
y?

St
ud
y

Q
ua
lit
y9

W
ri
ti
ng

Th
eo
ry

(I
,
D
)

W
ri
ti
ng

R
es
ea
rc
h

(I
,
D
)

A
la
ni
z
et

al
.
(2
01
5)

O
cc
up
at
io
na
l
Th

er
ap
y

n
=

27
(2
1M

/6
F)
,
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

4-
10

TD
–

–
14

(9
3%

)
0,

0
1,

1

A
sh
bu
rn
er

et
al
.
(2
01
2)

Sp
ec
ia
l
Ed
uc
at
io
n

n
=

22
(2
1M

/1
F)
,
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

8-
13

–
–

–
81

0
(7
3%

)
0,

0
1,

0

A
ss
ou
lin

e
et

al
.
(2
01
2)

A
ut
is
m

n
=

35
(5
0M

/9
F1
),
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

5-
17

–
A
D
I-
R
,
A
D
O
S

W
A
IS
-I
II
,
W
IS
C
-I
V

10
1
0
(9
1%

)
0,

0
0,

1

B
ro
w
n
et

al
.
(2
01
4)

A
ut
is
m

n
=

25
(2
2M

/3
F)
,
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

8-
17

TD
SR

S
W
A
SI

13
(8
7%

)
1,

1
1,

1

C
ar
tm

ill
et

al
.
(2
00
9)

O
cc
up
at
io
na
l
Th

er
ap
y

n
=

28
(2
4M

/4
F)
,
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

8-
8

TD
G
A
D
S,
G
A
R
S

K
B
IT

14
(9
3%

)
1,

1
1,

1

D
ill
on

an
d
U
nd
er
w
oo
d
(2
01
2)

H
um

an
-C
om

pu
te
r
St
ud
ie
s

n
=

10
(9
M
/1

F)
,
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

6-
12

TD
–

TR
O
G
8

12
(8
0%

)
1,

0
0,

0

D
ir
lik
ov

et
al
.
(2
01
7)

O
cc
up
at
io
na
l
Th

er
ap
y

n
=

57
(4
9M

/8
F)
,
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

7-
12

A
D
H
D
,
TD

A
D
I-
R
,
A
D
O
S-
G
,

SR
S

W
IS
C
-I
V
,
W
IS
C
-V

13
(8
7%

)
0,

0
1,

0

D
oc
kr
el
l
et

al
.
(2
01
4)

Ps
yc
ho
lo
gy

n
=

64
(5
7M

/7
F)
,
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

6-
12

SL
I

SR
S

B
A
S-
II

14
(9
3%

)
1,

1
1,

1

Es
te
s
et

al
.
(2
01
1)

A
ut
is
m

n
=

30
(2
5M

/5
F)
,
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

9-
9

–
A
D
I-
R
,
A
D
O
S-
G

D
A
S

91
0
(8
2%

)
0,

0
0,

0

Fo
le
y-
N
ic
po
n
et

al
.
(2
01
2)

Sp
ec
ia
l
Ed
uc
at
io
n

n
=

52
(4
5M

/7
F)
,
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

6-
16

–
A
D
I-
R
,
A
D
O
S-
G

W
IS
C
-I
V

10
1
0
(9
1%

)
0,

0
0,

0

Fu
en
te
s
et

al
.
(2
00
9)

N
eu
ro
lo
gy

n
=

14
(1
1M

/3
F)
,
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

8-
13

TD
A
D
O
S-
G
,
A
D
I-
R

W
IS
C
-I
V

12
(8
0%

)
0,

0
0,

0

Fu
en
te
s
et

al
.
(2
01
0)

N
eu
ro
lo
gy

n
=

12
(1
1M

/1
F)
,
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

12
-1
6

TD
A
D
O
S-
G
,
A
D
I-
R

W
A
SI
,
W
IS
C
-I
V

12
(8
0%

)
0,

0
0,

0

G
ra
ce
,
En
ti
co
tt
et

al
.
(2
01
7)

A
ut
is
m

n
=

23
(2
3M

/0
F)
,
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

8-
12

TD
SR

S-
2

W
A
SI
-I
I,
W
IS
C
-I
V

15
(1
00
%
)

0,
0

1,
1

G
ra
ce

et
al
.
(2
01
8)

Ps
yc
ho
lo
gy

n
=

23
(2
3M

/0
F)
,
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

8-
12

TD
SR

S-
2

W
A
SI
-I
I,
W
IS
C
-I
V

14
(9
3%

)
0,

0
1,

1

G
ra
ce
,
R
in
eh
ar
t
et

al
.
(2
01
7)

A
ut
is
m

n
=

23
(2
3M

/0
F)
,
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

8-
12

TD
SR

S-
2

W
A
SI
-I
I,
W
IS
C
-I
V

15
(1
00
%
)

0,
0

0,
1

G
ri
sw

ol
d
et

al
.
(2
00
2)

A
ut
is
m

n
=

20
(1
8M

/2
F)
,
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

6-
16

–
–

W
IS
C
-R

91
0
(8
2%

)
0,

0
0,

0

H
en
de
rs
on

an
d
G
re
en

(2
00
1)

La
ng
ua
ge

n
=

2
(1
M
/1
F)
,
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

9-
13

–
–

B
A
S,
W
IS
C
-I
II
-R

41
0
(3
6%

)
0,

0
0,

0

Jo
hn
so
n,

Pa
pa
do
po
ul
os

et
al
.

(2
01
3)

A
ut
is
m

n
=

14
(1
4M

/0
F)
,
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

7-
14

A
D
H
D
,
TD

SR
S,
D
B
C
-P

W
A
SI
,
W
IS
C
-I
V

14
(9
3%

)
0,

0
0,

0

Jo
hn
so
n
et

al
.
(2
01
5)

A
ut
is
m

n
=

26
(2
6M

/0
F)
,
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

8-
13

TD
SR

S,
D
B
C
-P

W
A
SI
,
W
IS
C
-I
V

13
(8
7%

)
0,

1
0,

1

Jo
hn
so
n,

Ph
ill
ip
s
et

al
.
(2
01
3)

D
ev
el
op
m
en
ta
l

D
is
ab
ili
ti
es

n
=

26
(2
6M

/0
F)
,
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

8-
13

TD
SR

S,
D
B
C
-P

W
A
SI
,
W
IS
C
-I
V

12
(8
0%

)
0,

0
0,

0

K
im

et
al
.
(2
01
8)

Ps
yc
ho
lo
gy

n
=

47
(M

/F
2
),
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

9-
18

–
A
D
O
S

D
A
S,
W
A
SI
,
W
IS
C
–

II
I

10
1
0
(9
1%

)
0,

0
0,

0

M
ay
es

an
d
C
al
ho
un

(2
00
3a
)

A
ut
is
m

n
=

78
(M

/F
3
),
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

6-
15

–
–

W
IS
C
-I
II

91
0
(8
2%

)
0,

0
0,

1

M
ay
es

an
d
C
al
ho
un

(2
00
3b
)

A
ut
is
m

n
=

78
(M

/F
4
),
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

6-
15

–
–

W
IS
C
-I
II

81
0
(7
3%

)
0,

0
0,

1

(c
on
tin

ue
d
on

ne
xt

pa
ge
)

M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471

6

T
ab

le
2
(c
on
tin

ue
d)

St
ud
y

Jo
ur
na
l
A
re
a

A
SD

G
ro
up

C
om

pa
ri
so
n
G
ro
up
(s
)

D
ir
ec
tl
y
A
ss
es
se
d

A
SD

?
A
ss
es
se
d/
R
ep
or
te
d

IQ
/A

bi
lit
y?

St
ud
y

Q
ua
lit
y9

W
ri
ti
ng

Th
eo
ry

(I
,
D
)

W
ri
ti
ng

R
es
ea
rc
h

(I
,
D
)

M
ay
es

an
d
C
al
ho
un

(2
00
6)

Ps
yc
ho
lo
gy

n
=

87
(M

/F
5
),
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

6-
16

A
D
H
D
-C
,
A
D
H
D
+
,
A
D
D
-I
,

A
D
D
+
,
B
D
,
B
I,
A
/D

,
SB
,
B
eD

–
W
IS
C
-I
II

10
(6
7%

)
0,

0
1,

1

M
ay
es

an
d
C
al
ho
un

(2
00
7)

N
eu
ro
ps
yc
ho
lo
gy

n
=

11
8
(M

/F
6
),
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

8-
16

TD
,
A
D
H
D
,
A
/D

,
O
D
D

–
W
IS
C
-I
II
,
W
IS
C
-I
V

11
(7
3%

)
0,

0
0,

1

M
ay
es

an
d
C
al
ho
un

(2
00
8)

A
ut
is
m

n
=

54
(4
8M

/6
F)
,
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

6-
14

–
C
A
Y
C

W
IS
C
-I
V

91
0
(8
2%

)
0,

0
0,

1

M
yl
es

et
al
.
(2
00
3)

D
ev
el
op
m
en
ta
l

D
is
ab
ili
ti
es

n
=

16
(1
5M

/1
F)
,
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

9-
11

TD
–

W
IS
C
-I
II

13
(8
7%

)
0,

0
0,

0

Tr
oy
b
et

al
.
(2
01
4)

A
ut
is
m

n
=

30
(3
7M

/4
F7
),
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

8-
21

TD
,
O
O

A
D
O
S,
SC
Q

W
A
SI

13
(8
7%

)
0,

0
0,

0

Za
jic

et
al
.
(2
01
8)

A
ut
is
m

n
=

77
(6
3M

/1
4F
),
ag
e

ra
ng
e
=

8-
16

A
D
H
D
,
TD

A
D
O
S,
A
SS
Q
,

SC
Q
,
SR

S
W
A
SI
-I
I

14
(9
3%

)
1,

1
1,

1

N
ot
e.
A
/D

=
an
xi
et
y/
de
pr
es
si
on
;
A
D
D
+

=
at
te
nt
io
n-
de
fi
ci
t
di
so
rd
er

(A
D
H
D
in
at
te
nt
iv
e
pl
us

a
co
m
or
bi
d
di
ag
no
si
s)
;
A
D
D
-I
=

at
te
nt
io
n-
de
fi
ci
t
di
so
rd
er

(A
D
H
D
in
at
te
nt
iv
e)
;
A
D
H
D
=

at
te
nt
io
n-
de
fi
ci
t/

hy
pe
ra
ct
iv
it
y

di
so
rd
er
;
A
D
H
D
+

=
at
te
nt
io
n-
de
fi
ci
t/
hy
pe
ra
ct
iv
it
y

di
so
rd
er

(p
lu
s
a

co
m
or
bi
d

di
ag
no
si
s)
;
A
D
H
D
-C
=

at
te
nt
io
n-
de
fi
ci
t/
hy
pe
ra
ct
iv
it
y

di
so
rd
er

(c
om

bi
ne
d)
;
B
D
=

bi
po
la
r
di
so
rd
er
;

B
eD

=
be
ha
vi
or

di
so
rd
er
;
B
I=

br
ai
n
in
ju
ry
;
O
D
D
=

op
po
si
ti
on
al

de
fi
an
t
di
so
rd
er
;
O
O
=

op
ti
m
al

ou
tc
om

es
;
SB

=
sp
in
a
bi
fi
da
;
SL
I=

sp
ec
ifi
c
la
ng
ua
ge

im
pa
ir
m
en
t;
TD

=
ty
pi
ca
lly

de
ve
lo
pi
ng
;
A
D
I-

R
=

A
ut
is
m

D
ia
gn
os
ti
c
In
te
rv
ie
w
-R
ev
is
ed
;
A
D
O
S
=

A
ut
is
m

D
ia
gn
os
ti
c
O
bs
er
va
ti
on

Sc
he
du
le
;
A
D
O
S-
G
=

A
ut
is
m

D
ia
gn
os
ti
c
O
bs
er
va
ti
on

Sc
he
du
le
-G
en
er
ic
;
A
SS
Q
=

A
ut
is
m

Sp
ec
tr
um

Sc
re
en
in
g

Q
ue
st
io
nn
ai
re
;
B
A
S
=

B
ri
ti
sh

…