Social problem-solving (SPS) is a core component of social-emotional learning (SEL) that integrates cognitive, emotional, and behavioral processes essential for adaptive social functioning. Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often experience persistent difficulties in these domains, highlighting the need for effective interventions. This meta-analysis quantitatively synthesized evidence on the effectiveness of SPS interventions for children with ASD. Nineteen group-design studies involving 741 participants met inclusion criteria. Using random-effects models, the pooled results revealed a significant, moderate overall effect on SPS competence (Cohen’s d = 0.53, 95% CI [0.15, 1.01], p < 0.05). Subgroup analyses further indicated that teacher-led and school-based implementations produced stronger effects than researcher-led interventions in non-school contexts, underscoring the importance of ecological validity. SPS interventions also generated moderate-to-large improvements in related SEL domains, including social skills, emotion recognition, theory of mind, and executive function. These findings support SPS as a pivotal mechanism for promoting social-emotional development in children with ASD. Future research should employ more rigorous designs, report implementation fidelity, and examine the sustainability of teacher-led interventions within naturalistic school settings.

Social problem-solving (SPS) difficulties may affect social, communicative, and adaptive functioning among individuals with autism. This study conducted a three-level meta-analysis of SPS interventions in single-case experimental design (SCED) research. Twenty-one SCED studies published between 2002 and 2025 met the inclusion criteria, yielding 114 dependent-variable-level effect sizes nested within 59 participant clusters. The unconditional three-level model showed a positive and statistically significant pooled effect, 1.741 (SE = 0.087, 95% CI [1.570, 1.911], p < 0.001), with low approximate total heterogeneity (I² = 24.48%). Moderator analyses did not identify clear statistically significant predictors of effect-size variability across SPS centrality, intervention setting, intervention type, implementer type, participant characteristics, or methodological quality. Sensitivity and study-level publication-bias analyses provided no clear indication that the findings were driven by a single influential study or by obvious small-study effects. Overall, targeted outcomes improved from baseline to intervention phases in studies of SPS-related intervention packages. Because many studies used multi-component intervention packages, the observed effects reflect the combined impact of interventions in which SPS-related components were embedded, and it is not possible to isolate the independent contribution of SPS components based on the available SCED evidence.