ReviewClinical child and family psychology review2023
Social Knowledge & Performance in Autism: A Critical Review & Recommendations.
Review in Clinical child and family psychology review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- A single-blind active-control randomized controlled trial of group-based social competence intervention.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Restricted neural parametric modulation of emotional arousal in autism reveals a core role for the cerebellum.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2026Article
- Recapitulation and reversal of neuropsychiatric phenotypes in a mouse model of human endogenous retrovirus type W expression.Molecular psychiatry · 2025Article
- How the ASCENT model can help optimize exposure therapies for Autistic clients.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Executive function deficits in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder.Nature reviews. Psychology · 2024Article
- Editorial: Break the stigma: autism. The future of research on autism stigma - towards multilevel, contextual & global understanding.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Autistic social challenges have long been assumed to arise from a lack of social knowledge ("not knowing what to do"), which has undergirded theory and practice in assessment, treatment, and education. However, emerging evidence suggests these differences may be better accounted for by difficulties with social performance ("doing what they may know"). This distinction has important implications for research, practice, policy, and community support of autistic people. This review examines the theoretical and clinical implications and empirical status of the knowledge-performance distinction in autism. Current evidence suggests that social knowledge deficits are neither definitional nor reliably related to outcomes in autism. Prioritizing social knowledge, then, may produce unanticipated, problematic consequences in terms of accuracy of assessment, intervention effectiveness, and promotion of stigma. It may also yield unrealistic expectations around the value of knowledge for autistic people and their families, yielding important ethical considerations. Conversely, recent evidence highlights performance-related factors as being especially promising for better modeling and addressing social challenges in autism. Prioritizing performance, then, may offer new directions for assessment, substantially different intervention opportunities, and novel methods of inclusion and affirmation. This review touches upon each of these domains and implications, integrates these developments with broader models of social competence in youth, and provides direction for future research and practice regarding social competence in autism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.