Tony Charman

Prof. Tony Charman

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

36Years (1991-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 August 2008 in Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ESEmily Simonoff
Emily Simonoff
APAndrew Pickles
Andrew Pickles
TCTony Charman
Tony Charman
SCSusie Chandler
Susie Chandler
TLTom Loucas
Tom Loucas
GBGillian Baird
Gillian Baird

16 January 2020 in Nature Reviews Disease Primers
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
CLCatherine Lord
Catherine Lord
TBTraolach S. Brugha
Traolach S. Brugha
TCTony Charman
Tony Charman
JCJames Cusack
James Cusack
GDGuillaume Dumas
Guillaume Dumas
JVJeremy Veenstra-VanderWeele
Jeremy Veenstra-VanderWeele

1 July 2006 in The Lancet
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
GBGillian Baird
Gillian Baird
ESEmily Simonoff
Emily Simonoff
APAndrew Pickles
Andrew Pickles
SCSusie Chandler
Susie Chandler
TLTom Loucas
Tom Loucas
TCTony Charman
Tony Charman

16 May 2016 in Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CNCourtenay Frazier Norbury
Courtenay Frazier Norbury
DGDebbie Gooch
Debbie Gooch
CWCharlotte Wray
Charlotte Wray
GBGillian Baird
Gillian Baird
TCTony Charman
Tony Charman
APAndrew Pickles
Andrew Pickles
Background: Diagnosis of ‘specific’ language impairment traditionally required nonverbal IQ to be within normal limits, often resulting in restricted access to clinical services for children with lower NVIQ . Changes to DSM ‐5 criteria for language disorder removed this NVIQ requirement. This study sought to delineate the impact of varying NVIQ criteria on prevalence, clinical presentation and functional impact of language disorder in the first UK population study of language impairment at school entry. Methods: A population‐based survey design with sample weighting procedures was used to estimate population prevalence. We surveyed state‐maintained reception classrooms ( n = 161 or 61% of eligible schools) in Surrey, England. From a total population of 12,398 children (ages 4–5 years), 7,267 (59%) were screened. A stratified subsample ( n = 529) received comprehensive assessment of language, NVIQ , social, emotional and behavioural problems, and academic attainment. Results: The total population prevalence estimate of language disorder was 9.92% (95% CI 7.38, 13.20). The prevalence of language disorder of unknown origin was estimated to be 7.58% (95% CI 5.33, 10.66), while the prevalence of language impairment associated with intellectual disability and/or existing medical diagnosis was 2.34% (95% CI 1.40, 3.91). Children with language disorder displayed elevated symptoms of social, emotional and behavioural problems relative to peers, F (1, 466) = 7.88, p  =   .05, and 88% did not make expected academic progress. There were no differences between those with average and low‐average NVIQ scores in severity of language deficit, social, emotional and behavioural problems, or educational attainment. In contrast, children with language impairments associated with known medical diagnosis and/or intellectual disability displayed more severe deficits on multiple measures. Conclusions: At school entry, approximately two children in every class of 30 pupils will experience language disorder severe enough to hinder academic progress. Access to specialist clinical services should not depend on NVIQ .

1 June 2010 in The Lancet
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
JGJonathan Green
Jonathan Green
TCTony Charman
Tony Charman
HMHelen McConachie
Helen McConachie
CACatherine Aldred
Catherine Aldred
VSVicky Slonims
Vicky Slonims
APAndrew Pickles
Andrew Pickles
Results of small trials suggest that early interventions for social communication are effective for the treatment of autism in children. We therefore investigated the efficacy of such an intervention in a larger trial. Children with core autism (aged 2 years to 4 years and 11 months) were randomly assigned in a one-to-one ratio to a parent-mediated communication-focused (Preschool Autism Communication Trial [PACT]) intervention or treatment as usual at three specialist centres in the UK. Those assigned to PACT were also given treatment as usual. Randomisation was by use of minimisation of probability in the marginal distribution of treatment centre, age (42 months), and autism severity (Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Generic [ADOS-G] algorithm score 12-17 or 18-24). Primary outcome was severity of autism symptoms (a total score of social communication algorithm items from ADOS-G, higher score indicating greater severity) at 13 months. Complementary secondary outcomes were measures of parent-child interaction, child language, and adaptive functioning in school. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN58133827. 152 children were recruited. 77 were assigned to PACT (London [n=26], Manchester [n=26], and Newcastle [n=25]); and 75 to treatment as usual (London [n=26], Manchester [n=26], and Newcastle [n=23]). At the 13-month endpoint, the severity of symptoms was reduced by 3.9 points (SD 4.7) on the ADOS-G algorithm in the group assigned to PACT, and 2.9 (3.9) in the group assigned to treatment as usual, representing a between-group effect size of -0.24 (95% CI -0.59 to 0.11), after adjustment for centre, sex, socioeconomic status, age, and verbal and non-verbal abilities. Treatment effect was positive for parental synchronous response to child (1.22, 0.85 to 1.59), child initiations with parent (0.41, 0.08 to 0.74), and for parent-child shared attention (0.33, -0.02 to 0.68). Effects on directly assessed language and adaptive functioning in school were small. On the basis of our findings, we cannot recommend the addition of the PACT intervention to treatment as usual for the reduction of autism symptoms; however, a clear benefit was noted for parent-child dyadic social communication. UK Medical Research Council, and UK Department for Children, Schools and Families.

10 August 2018 in Autism
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
SFSue Fletcher-Watson
Sue Fletcher-Watson
JAJon Adams
Jon Adams
KBKabie Brook
Kabie Brook
TCTony Charman
Tony Charman
LCLaura Crane
Laura Crane
EPElizabeth Pellicano
Elizabeth Pellicano
Participatory research methods connect researchers with relevant communities to achieve shared goals. These methods can deliver results that are relevant to people’s lives and thus likely to have a positive impact. In the context of a large and growing body of autism research, with continued poor implementation, and some evidence of community dissatisfaction, there is a powerful case for participatory autism research. In order to develop a framework for such collaborative working, a UK seminar series was organised and co-produced by autistic and non-autistic people with academic, practitioner and lived expertise. This article reports on the outcomes from the series, identifying five topics relevant to building a community of practice in participatory research: Respect, Authenticity, Assumptions, Infrastructure and Empathy. Each topic is connected to a specific example from within and beyond research, to inspire new practices in the field. We call for the development of participatory research skills among the autism research community and the facilitation of greater autistic leadership of, and partnership in, research. Such work, if delivered to a high standard, is likely to lead to better translation into practice and improved outcomes for autistic people and those who support them.