Anecdotal reports suggest children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) ambulate differently than peers with typical development (TD). Little empirical evidence supports these reports. Children with ASD exhibit delayed motor skills, and it is important to determine whether or not motor movement deficits exist during walking. The purpose of the study was to perform a comprehensive lower-extremity gait analysis between children (aged 5–12 years) with ASD and age- and gender-matched-samples with TD. Gait parameters were normalized to 101 data points and the gait cycle was divided into seven sub-phases. The Model Statistic procedure was used to test for statistical significance between matched-pairs throughout the entire gait cycle for each parameter. When collapsed across all participants, children with ASD exhibited large numbers of significant differences (p < 0.05) throughout the gait cycle in hip, knee, and ankle joint positions as well as vertical and anterior/posterior ground reaction forces. Children with ASD exhibited unique differences throughout the gait cycle, which supports current literature on the heterogeneity of the disorder. The present work supports recent findings that motor movement differences may be a core symptom of ASD. Thus, individuals may benefit from therapeutic movement interventions that follow precision medicine guidelines by accounting for individual characteristics, given the unique movement differences observed.

We demonstrate the effect of sample and trial size on statistical outcomes for single-subject analyses (SSA) and group analyses (GA) for a frequently studied performance activity and common intervention. Fifty strides of walking data collected in two blocks of 25 trials for two shoe conditions were analyzed for samples of five, eight, 10, and 12 subjects and five, 10, 25, and 50 trials. SSA revealed a greater number of differences (p < .05) than GA for all sample and trial sizes. Increasing sample size resulted in consistent increases in the number of differences for GA; differences for SSA were independent of sample size. Increasing trial size from five to 50 resulted in increased differences for SSA; GA were independent of trial size. Detecting significant differences in group designs is more dependent on the number of subjects, while SSA are more dependent on the number of trials.