Naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions for young children with autism spectrum disorder share key elements. However, the extent of similarity between programs within this class of evidence-based interventions is unknown. There is also currently no tool that can be used to measure the implementation of their common elements. This article presents a multi-stage process which began with defining all intervention elements of naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions. Next, intervention experts identified the common elements of naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions using a survey. An observational rating scheme of those common elements, the eight-item NDBI-Fi, was developed. We evaluated the quality of the NDBI-Fi using videos from completed trials of caregiver-implemented naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions. Results showed that the NDBI-Fi measure has promise; it was sensitive to change, related to other similar measures, and demonstrated adequate agreement between raters. This unique measure has the potential to advance intervention science in autism spectrum disorder by providing a tool to measure the implementation of common elements across naturalistic developmental behavioral intervention models. Given that naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions have numerous shared strategies, this may ease clinicians’ uncertainty about choosing the “right” intervention package. It also suggests that there may not be a need for extensive training in more than one naturalistic developmental behavioral intervention. Future research should determine whether these common elements are part of other treatment approaches to better understand the quality of services children and families receive as part of usual care.

This mixed methods study examined the relationship between the college social experience and subjective well-being in autistic students in the Midwestern United States. An online survey focused on social connectedness, social participation, social support, and subjective well-being. A semi-structured interview discussed transition, supports received, and social participation. Correlations and a hierarchical regression were used to examine the relationship between social experience variables and subjective well-being from the survey. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify interview themes. Theme counts for students who reported higher and lower subjective well-being were examined. Social connectedness, time spent with friends, and perceived social support were positively correlated with students’ subjective well-being, with social connectedness explaining unique variance. Common themes included challenges navigating a new social environment and the importance of family, friends, and professors in providing social support. Students with lower subjective well-being more frequently discussed struggles to make social connections and the trade-off between socializing and succeeding academically, whereas students with higher subjective well-being more frequently described college as providing opportunities to develop meaningful social connections. This study adds new perspectives on the college experience for autistic students and highlights the important role that social connections and support play in their subjective well-being.

Defining the central components of an intervention is critical for balancing fidelity with flexible implementation in both research settings and community practice. Implementation scientists distinguish an intervention’s essential components (thought to cause clinical change) and adaptable periphery (recommended, but not necessary). While implementing core components with fidelity may be essential for effectiveness, requiring fidelity to the adaptable periphery may stifle innovation critical for personalizing care and achieving successful community implementation. No systematic method exists for defining essential components a priori. We present the CORE (COmponents & Rationales for Effectiveness) Fidelity Method—a novel method for defining key components of evidence-based interventions—and apply it to a case example of reciprocal imitation teaching, a parent-implemented social communication intervention. The CORE Fidelity Method involves three steps: (1) gathering information from published and unpublished materials; (2) synthesizing information, including empirical and hypothesized causal explanations of component effectiveness; and (3) drafting a CORE model and ensuring its ongoing use in implementation efforts. Benefits of this method include: (1) ensuring alignment between intervention and fidelity materials; (2) clarifying the scope of the adaptable periphery to optimize implementation; and (3) hypothesizing—and later, empirically validating—the intervention’s active ingredients and their associated mechanisms of change. Lay Interventions that support social communication include several “components,” or parts (e.g. strategies for working with children and families, targeting specific skills). Some of these components may be essential for the intervention to work, while others may be recommended or viewed as helpful but not necessary for the intervention to work. “Recommended” components are often described as “adaptable” because they can be changed to improve fit in different settings where interventions are offered or with different individuals. We need to understand which parts of an intervention are essential (and which are adaptable) when translating interventions from research to community settings, but it is challenging to do this before studying an intervention in the community. This article presents the CORE (COmponents & Rationales for Effectiveness) Fidelity Method—a new method for defining the essential components of evidence-based interventions—and applies it to a case example of Reciprocal Imitation Teaching, an intervention that parents are taught to deliver with their young children with social communication delays. The CORE Fidelity Method involves three steps: (1) gathering information from multiple sources; (2) integrating information from previous research and theory; and (3) drafting a CORE model for ongoing use. The benefits of using the CORE Fidelity Method may include: (1) improving consistency in intervention and research materials to help all providers emphasize the most important skills or strategies; (2) clarifying which parts of the intervention can be adapted; and (3) supporting future research that evaluates which intervention components work and how they work.

Background: Positive psychological traits are associated with higher life satisfaction, academic success, and fewer mental health problems in neurotypical (NT) college students. However, it is unclear whether this is similar for autistic students. This study explores college-specific positive traits, including academic satisfaction, self-efficacy, gratitude, and school connectedness, and their relationship with life satisfaction in autistic college students and their NT peers. Method: Autistic ( n = 42) and NT ( n = 50) college students completed an online survey containing measures of autistic traits, college well-being, and life satisfaction. We explored differences in life satisfaction and college well-being between groups using analysis of variances and explored these relationships based on self-reported autistic traits across groups using correlations. We assessed whether a relationship between college-specific well-being and life satisfaction was moderated by autistic traits using linear regression. Results: Results showed emerging differences in school connectedness such that autistic students were less likely to report feeling connected despite similar scores on other domains of college well-being and life satisfaction; correcting for multiple comparisons this difference was no longer significant. However, autistic traits were significantly related to life satisfaction and school connectedness across the full sample. Differences in school connectedness also explained a significant amount of variance in life satisfaction over and above the influence of autistic traits. The interaction between connectedness and autistic traits was not significant. Conclusions: Results suggests that students who experience higher levels of connection with their university and peers, regardless of the number of autistic traits they endorse, report higher satisfaction with life. Given the importance of social connectedness in college-specific and overall well-being, significant attention should be paid to the protective role of social support systems in addition to academic services when understanding how to support autistic individuals as well as individuals who do not meet diagnostic criteria, but share some similar clinical traits. Lay summary: What was the purpose of this study?: College well-being is related to life satisfaction in neurotypical (NT) college students. However, it is unclear whether this is similar for autistic college students. The purpose of this study was to understand how different aspects of college well-being support life satisfaction in autistic college students compared with their NT peers. What did the researchers do?: We invited both autistic and NT college students to complete an online survey. The survey asked about college well-being and life satisfaction. We looked at similarities and differences in responses between autistic and NT students. We also looked at whether college well-being was related to life satisfaction and whether that depended on the number of autistic traits that individuals selected to describe themselves. What were the results of the study?: We found that there were no group differences between autistic and NT college students in their overall college well-being or life satisfaction. However, there were differences in life satisfaction and one individual aspect of college well-being, school connectedness, based on autistic traits. Students with more autistic traits were less likely to report feeling connected to their university and peers and were less satisfied with life overall. We also found that school connectedness and the number of autistic traits, rather than diagnostic status, were related to life satisfaction. Students who feel more connected to their university and peers, regardless of the number of autistic traits they endorse, report higher satisfaction with life. What do these findings add to what was already known?: While there are many studies of life satisfaction in autistic individuals, most focus on the negative aspects. Our study is the first to look at positive factors, such as college well-being, in autistic students and their NT peers. This is important because both autistic and NT students struggle with academics, social isolation, and mental health in college. However, understanding the positive traits that can help counteract those challenges is important in supporting all students in college. Our findings show that both autistic traits and school connectedness are important, but separate, components for understanding life satisfaction in college students with and without autism. What are the potential weaknesses in the study?: This study only recruited autistic participants from disability resource centers of 4-year colleges, so students who were attending community colleges, private institutions, or who did not disclose their diagnosis to the disability resource centers were not included. As autistic students may be more likely to attend community or private colleges or may not disclose their diagnostic status, our results may not apply to other people. Our sample of students was also small, which limits our ability to find differences and have confidence in the results. How will these findings help autistic adults?: These findings show the importance of social integration for the well-being of neurodivergent and NT college students and support ongoing requests from autistic students for more nonacademic supports in college. Screening for college well-being and improving social integration are potential ways to increase life satisfaction for neurodivergent college students.