theory of mind intervention

review studies were selected on the basis that they reported on an applicable intervention (linked to tom in one of four clearly‐defined ways), presented new randomised controlled trial data, and participants had a confirmed diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder. it is possible that the continuing refinement of the tom model will lead to better interventions which have a greater impact on development than those investigated to date. this evidence could imply that the theory of mind model has little relevance for educational and clinical practice in asd. one meaningful way to evaluate the explanatory power and clinical and educational relevance of these competing theories is to explore their impact in an intervention setting. there is wide variety in the choice of assessments to capture change in this domain, though most are based on standardised assessments and are closely linked to the intervention target skill. low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. the term has since been developed in a number of different directions (e.g. as a result, many believe that failures of tom are central to explaining the difficulties experienced by people with asd (though not a sufficient explanation). as a result, the specific skill being targeted, the method of intervention delivery, its duration and individual differences between participants in tom intervention studies will be important factors for consideration and for statistical analysis in this review. we reiterate that tom (theory of mind) describes the ability to understand another’s thoughts, beliefs, and other internal states and is encapsulated in a test of false belief. the summary of findings table for the main comparison reports on these outcomes and also includes an estimate of the quality of evidence in each category. describing the method used to conceal allocation in detail) and evaluating whether there was risk of bias in that area (e.g. examples might be when participants are very young and/or low‐functioning people with autism and are unlikely to be aware of intervention targets, and where outcome is assessed using a measure resilient to performance bias such as computerised assessment. unclear (or moderate) risk of bias: there may be an additional risk of bias but there is insufficient information to fully assess this risk, or it is unclear whether the risk would introduce bias in study results. for included studies reporting drop‐out, we reported the number of participants included in the final analysis as a proportion of those participants who began the intervention (see characteristics of included studies). where two or more studies suitable for inclusion were found, and the studies were considered to be homogenous, a meta‐analysis was performed on the results. assessment of titles and abstracts and elimination of duplicates between the searches resulted in a list of 99 records for closer examination (figure 1).







there were no studies falling into category three or four and the vast majority of studies stated that they were designed to teach precursor skills of tom. thus, only half of the included studies (11 reports) were judged to have ‘low’ risk of bias in terms of the description of the method of randomisation. where studies were judged at unclear risk of bias, this was due to either a lack of sufficient detail in the published report (e.g. selective reporting was not evident among the papers included and 18 studies (82%) were judged at low risk of bias in this category. studies in this review used a wide variety of outcome measures, often using measures specific to their intervention target and sometimes designed specifically for that study. furthermore, the ados is not intended as an intervention outcome measure, and it is not usual to analyse a sub‐set of items. seven studies examined the impact of intervention on facial affect recognition skills from photographs, as compared to treatment‐as‐usual (solomon 2004; golan 2006; ryan 2010; hopkins 2011; williams 2012; young 2012; baghdadli 2013), which were inspected further for potential inclusion in a meta‐analysis. a consistent finding in these studies using multiple measures of the same construct was an absence of generalisation of the target skill to novel settings or stimuli where this was assessed. the only outcomes of sufficient similarity to be appropriate for inclusion in meta‐analysis were the measures of joint engagement during mother‐child play reported in kasari 2010 and kaale 2012, both as percentages of total time. nevertheless, the overall message from the study authors is of improvement in social skills as a result of intervention. very few studies provided adequate information and in a majority of cases the authors were contacted to provide further details. this is an obstacle to comparison of multiple studies both at a systematic review level and for the average reader of these published reports. the studies reported in this review cover a good range of tom and associated skills, though the fact of this array means that more evidence is needed in each category. we note that it is extremely rare in this field for postgraduate dissertations to conduct an independent clinical trial because of the challenges surrounding recruitment and design. there is wide variety in the choice of assessments to capture change in this domain, though most are based on standardised assessments and are closely linked to the intervention target skill. there is a collection of studies reporting on the escs (some of which are summarised in analysis 1.1), but within this group findings are once again mixed. in either case the review will report how the imputed values appear to change the outcome of the study/meta‐analysis and use this variability to inform the strength of our conclusions.

the ‘theory of mind’ (tom) model suggests that people with autism spectrum disorder (asd) have a key words: theory of mind, children, high functional autism spectrum disorders, social skills intervention programs are established to improve tom and social skills in children with asd (41). this review examined “the effect of interventions, based on the theory of mind ( tom) model, for autism spectrum disorders, theory of mind intervention site www ncbi nlm nih gov prmd niv, theory of mind intervention site www ncbi nlm nih gov prmd niv, theory of mind activities pdf, theory of mind training, theory of mind treatment. [u’ Key Features. Theory of mind training includes any form of instruction designed to teach people how to recognise mental states (such as thoughts, beliefs and emotions) in themselves and in other people. Theory of mind training is also known as ToM training, mind reading training and mental state training.

theory of mind training includes any form of instruction which is designed to teach people how to recognise mental theory of mind based interventions compared with wait-list or treatment-as-usual control for autism spectrum disorder. . individual differences in the efficacy of a short theory of mind intervention for children with autism spectrum disorder: a, how to improve theory of mind, theory of mind in autism development implications and intervention, theory of mind training program, theory of mind training adults, teaching theory of mind

When you search for the theory of mind intervention, you may look for related areas such as theory of mind intervention site:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&prmd=niv, theory of mind activities pdf, theory of mind training, theory of mind treatment, how to improve theory of mind, theory of mind in autism development implications and intervention, theory of mind training program, theory of mind training adults, teaching theory of mind. what is theory of mind autism? what is an example of theory of mind? how can i test my theory of mind? what is theory of mind and how does it develop?