Table 1.
Quality ratings of studies of telehealth interventions for children with ASD using group designs
| Study | Participant characterstics | IV | Comparison condition | DV | Link between research q and data analysis | Use of stat tests | Random assignment | IOA | Blind raters | Fidelity | Attrition | Generalizability and/or maintenance | Effect size | Social validity | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blackman et al. (2020) | High | Unacceptable | High | Acceptable | High | High | No evidence | Evidence | No evidence | No evidence | No evidence | No evidence | No evidence | Evidence | Weak |
| Dai et al. (2018) | Acceptable | High | High | High | High | Acceptable | No evidence | N/A | N/A | No evidence | Evidence | No evidence | No evidence | No evidence | Weak |
| Fisher et al. (2020) | High | Unacceptable | High | High | High | Acceptable | Evidence | Evidence | Evidence | Evidence | Evidence | No evidence | Evidence | No evidence | Weak |
| Hao et al. (2021) | Acceptable | High | High | High | High | Acceptable | No evidence | Evidence | Evidence | Evidence | Evidence | No evidence | Evidence | No evidence | Adequate |
| Hay-Hansson and Eldevik (2013) | High | High | High | High | Unacceptable | Unacceptable | Evidence | Evidence | No evidence | No evidence | No evidence | Evidence | Evidence | No evidence | Weak |
| Hepburn et al. (2016) | High | Acceptable | High | High | High | High | No evidence | Evidence | N/A | Evidence | Evidence | No evidence | Evidence | No evidence | Strong |
| Ingersoll and Berger (2015) | High | High | High | Acceptable | High | High | Evidence | No evidence | No evidence | Evidence | Evidence | No evidence | Evidence | No evidence | Adequate |
| Ingersoll et al. (2016) | High | Acceptable | High | High | High | High | Evidence | Evidence | No evidence | Evidence | No evidence | Evidence | No evidence | No evidence | Adequate |
| Kuravackel et al. (2018) | High | High | High | High | High | High | Evidence | No evidence | No evidence | Evidence | No evidence | No evidence | Evidence | No evidence | Adequate |
| Lindgren et al. (2016) | Acceptable | High | High | High | High | High | No evidence | Evidence | No evidence | Evidence | Evidence | No evidence | No evidence | No evidence | Adequate |
| Marino et al. (2020) | Acceptable | Unacceptable | Acceptable | High | Acceptable | Acceptable | Evidence | No evidence | No evidence | No evidence | Evidence | No evidence | Evidence | No evidence | Weak |
| Pickard et al. (2016) | Acceptable | High | High | High | High | High | Evidence | Evidence | Evidence | No evidence | Evidence | No evidence | No evidence | No evidence | Weak |
| Ruble et al. (2013) | High | High | High | High | High | High | Evidence | Evidence | No evidence | Evidence | Evidence | No evidence | Evidence | No evidence | Strong |
| Shire et al. (2020) | Acceptable | Acceptable | High | High | High | High | No evidence | Evidence | Evidence | Evidence | Evidence | No evidence | Evidence | No evidence | Adequate |
| Vismara et al. (2018) | High | High | High | High | High | High | Evidence | Evidence | Evidence | Evidence | Evidence | Evidence | No evidence | Evidence | Strong |
| Vismara et al. (2009) | Acceptable | High | Unacceptable | High | High | Unacceptable | No evidence | Evidence | Evidence | Evidence | Evidence | No evidence | No evidence | No evidence | Weak |
Quality indicators retrieved from Reichow et al. (2008). Primary quality indicators include thorough descriptions of participant characteristics, independent variables, comparison conditions, and dependent variables; a strong link between the research question(s) and data analysis; and proper use of statistical analyses. Secondary quality indicators include evidence of random assignment, interobserver agreement, blind raters, fidelity, comparable attrition between groups, generalization and/or maintenance, reports of effect size, and social validity. Strong quality is determined by high quality ratings on all primary quality indicators and evidence of four or more secondary quality indicators. Adequate quality is determined by high quality ratings on four or more primary quality indicators with no unacceptable quality ratings on any primary quality indicators and evidence of at least two secondary quality indicators. Weak quality is determined by fewer than four high quality ratings on primary quality indicators or evidence of less than two secondary quality indicators
Note: IV, independent variable; DV, dependent variable; IOA, inter-observer agreement