Appendix 1.
Characteristics of the included studies.
| Study |
N
|
Mean CA |
Trope | Effect size (g) | 95% CI | Equating strategy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author (year) | ASD (TD) | ASD (TD) | ||||
| * Adachi et al. (2004) | 54 (199) | 118 (120) | Metaphor; Sarcasm (Combined) | −0.45 | [−0.75, −0.15] | No difference in CA and VIQ |
| * Au-Yeung et al. (2015) | 22 (20) | 389 (286) | Irony | −0.51 | [−1.11, 0.09] | Matched based on VIQ |
| * Channon et al. (2014) | 21 (21) | 480 (524) | Sarcasm | −0.83 | [−1.45, −0.21] | Matched based on CA |
| * Chouinard and Cummine (2016) | 13 (12) | 401 (396) | Metaphor | −0.45 | [−1.21, 0.31] | Matched based on CA and semantic knowledge |
| * Colich et al. (2012) | 15 (15) | 171 (158) | Irony | 0.55 | [−0.15, 1.26] | Matched based on CA and VIQ |
| Dennis et al. (2001) | 8 (8) | 119 (113) | Metaphor/idiom | −1.37 | [−2.42, −0.33] | Matched based on CA |
| * De Villiers et al. (2011) | 30 (28) | 149 (151) | Irony Metaphor(Combined) |
−0.82 | [−1.35, −0.29] | Matched based on CA and VIQ |
| * Glenwright and Agbayewa (2012) | 14 (14) | 148 (139) | Ironic criticism | 0.14 | [−0.58, 0.86] | Matched based on verbal mental age and CA |
| * Gold and Faust (2010) | 27 (36) | 275 (296) | LVF/RH Conventional metaphor LVF/RH Novel metaphor RVH/LH Conventional metaphor RVH/LH Novel metaphor (Combined) |
−0.52 | [−1.02, −0.01] | Matched based on CA and VIQ |
| * Gunter et al. (2002) | 8 (8) | 195 (203) | Humour Written metaphor Novel metaphor (Combined) |
−1.35 | [−2.40, −0.30] | Matched based on CA and VIQ |
| * Hermann et al. (2013) | 20 (20) | 509 (421) | Metaphor | −0.38 | [−1.00, 0.22] | Matched based on vocabulary |
| * Huang et al. (2015) | 50 (50) | 122 (127) | Irony Metaphor Sarcasm(Combined) |
−0.52 | [−0.91, −0.12] | Matched based on CA and vocabulary |
| * Imaizumi et al. (2009) | 20 (24) | 119 (114) | Sarcasm | −1.85 | [−2.55, −1.15] | Matched based on CA |
| * Kaland et al. (2002) | 21 (20) | 189 (186) | Figure of speech Irony (Combined) |
−1.26 | [−2.27, −0.26] | Matched based on CA |
| * Kasirer and Mashal (2014) | 17 (17) | 253 (273) | Conventional metaphor Novel metaphor (Combined) |
−0.47 | [−1.14, 0.20] | Matched based on CA |
| Landa and Goldberg (2005) | 19 (19) | 132 (132) | Metaphoric expressions and figures of speech | −1.01 | [−1.68, −0.35] | Matched based on CA and VIQ |
| Lee et al. (2015) | 16 (10) | 111,72 (111,6) | Matched idiom task Mismatched idiom task (Combined) |
−1.04 | [−1.86, −0.23] | Matched based on age and IQ |
| Lewis et al. (2007) (Adults) | 17 (13) | 418 (416) | Figurative language | −1.09 | [−1.85, −0.33] | Matched based on CA |
| Lewis et al. (2007) (Children) | 20 (18) | 139 (138) | Figurative language | 0.32 | [−0.30, 0.95] | Matched based on CA |
| * Li et al. (2013) | 13 (13)12 (12) | 125 (125) | Irony belief Irony intention (Combined) |
0.16 | [−0.64, 0.84] | Matched based on LA and CA |
| MacKay and Shaw (2004) | 19 (21) | 116 (123) | Hyperbole; indirect request; irony; metonymy; rhetorical questions; understatement (Combined) | −0.95 | [−1.66, −0.23] | Matched based on CA and LA |
| * Martin and McDonald (2004) | 14 (24) | 236 (237) | Irony | −1.09 | [−1.78, −0.40] | Matched based on CA |
| Mashal and Kasirer (2011) | 20 (20) | 156 | Idiom Metaphor (Combined) |
−0.73 | [−1.36, −0.10] | Matched based on CA and LA |
| * Mathersul et al. (2013) | 40 (33) | 446 (500) | Sarcasm | −0.67 | [−1.14, −0.20] | Matched based on CA and vocabulary |
| McCrimmon et al. (2012) (Cluster A) | 24 (12) | 222 (222) | Proverb | 0.66 | [−0.02, 1.36] | Matched based on CA and VIQ |
| McCrimmon et al. (2012) (Cluster B) | 9 (21) | 222 (222) | Proverb | 1.25 | [0.42, 2.07] | Matched based on CA |
| * Minshew et al. (1995) | 62 (50) | 213 (203) | Metaphoric expressions | −1.26 | [−1.66, −0.85] | Matched based on CA and VIQ |
| Norbury (2004) | Idiom TD vs ASL Idiom TD vs ASO (Combined) |
−1.16 | [−1.70, −0.62] | Matched based on CA | ||
| * Olofson et al. (2014) | 13 (13) | 155 (153) | Conventional metaphor Novel metaphor (Combined) |
−0.90 | [−1.69, −0.12] | Matched based on CA |
| Ozonoff and Miller (1996) | 17 (17) | 314 (287) | Humour | −0.91 | [−1.60, −0.22] | Matched based on CA and VIQ |
| * Pexman et al. (2011) | 18 (18) | 132 (132) 132 (94) |
Ironic compliment ASD vs TD CAM Ironic compliment ASD vs TD LAM Ironic criticism ASD vs TD CAM Ironic criticism ASD vs TD LAM (Combined) |
0.05 | [−0.59, 0.69] | Matched based on LA |
| * Peterson et al. (2012) | 44 (29) | 108 (105) | Sarcasm | −0.39 | [−0.86, 0.07] | Matched based on CA |
| * Rundblad and Annaz (2010b) | 11 (17) | 101 (100) | Metaphor Metonymy (Combined) |
−1.32 | [−2.13, −0.51] | Matched based on CA. Significant group difference in verbal skills |
| * Rajendran et al. (2005) | 9 (12) | 198 (201) | Figure of speech Sarcasm (Combined) |
−0.30 | [−1.14, 0.52] | Matched based on CA and VIQ |
| Saban-Bezalel and Mashal (2015) | 23 (24) | 316 (327) | Idiom Irony (Combined) |
−0.65 | [−1.23, 0.07] | Matched based on CA and VIQ |
|
*Scheeren et al. (2013) (Adolescents) *Scheeren et al. (2013) (Children) |
84 (16) 19 (7) |
184 (172) 122 (114) |
Sarcasm Sarcasm |
0.30 0.16 |
[−0.11, 0.72] [−0.39, 0.72] |
Matched based on receptive IQ (significantly older ASD group) |
| Strandburg et al. (1993) | 13 (13) | 299 (314) | Idiom | −1.12 | [−1.92, −0.31] | Matched based on CA and VIQ |
| Wang et al. (2006) | 18 (18) | 143 (143) | Idiom | −0.88 | [−1.56, −0.21] | Matched based on CA and VIQ |
| Whyte et al. (2014) | 116 (114) 116 (114) |
Idiom ASD vs CAM Idiom ASD vs LAM (Combined) |
0.50 | [−1.04, 0.04] | Matched based on CA and LA | |
|
*Williams et al. (2013) (Adults) *Williams et al. (2013) (Children) |
13 (12) 15 (14) |
299 (252) 156 (150) |
Irony Irony |
−0.91 −0.48 |
[−1.71, −0.11] [1.20, 0.23] |
Matched based on CA and VIQ Matched based on CA and VIQ |
| Wu et al. (2014) | 164 (164) | 165 (165) | Incongruity Nonsense joke (Combined) |
−0.52 | [−0.74, −0.30] | Matched based on CA and IQ |
| * Zalla et al. (2014) | 17 (17) | 328 (361) | Irony | −0.58 | [−1.25, 0.08] | Matched based on CA and VIQ |
| * Zheng et al. (2015) | 15 (15) | 78 (75) | Conventional metaphor Conventional metonyms Novel metaphors Novel metonyms (Combined) |
−0.75 | [−1.48, −0.03] | Matched based on CA and VIQ |
ASD: autism spectrum disorder; ASL: ASD with language impairment; ASO: ASD only; CA: chronological age; CI: confidence interval; LA: language ability; LH: left hemisphere; LVF: left visual field; RH: right hemisphere; RVF: right visual field; TD: typically developing.
References marked with an asterisk denote studies included in subgroup analysis of metaphor and irony and sarcasm.