ReviewBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Opening New Worlds of Meaning-A Scoping Review of Figurative Language in Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Review in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using natural language processing to support digital communication in adolescents and young adults with autism spectrum disorder.PloS one · 2026Article
- The missing piece in inclusion: addressing school avoidance among children with autism.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Figurative language (metaphor, idiom, irony/sarcasm) is central to pragmatic communication but is frequently challenging for children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). A scoping review was conducted to map pedagogical and clinical interventions that target figurative-language skills in school-age learners with ASD and to summarize reported outcomes. Following a PCC (Population-Concept-Context) framework and PRISMA-ScR reporting, systematic searches were performed in ERIC and Google Scholar (2010-2025). Eligibility required an ASD sample (ages 5-18), an intervention explicitly addressing figurative-language comprehension, and empirical outcome data from educational or related practice settings. Seven studies met inclusion criteria: five targeting metaphors, one targeting idioms, and one targeting sarcasm/irony. Interventions were predominantly delivered one-to-one or in small groups and emphasized structured, explicit instruction with visual scaffolds and stepwise prompting. Across studies, participants demonstrated clear gains on trained items. Generalization beyond trained material was most often observed for metaphor and sarcasm interventions, particularly when instruction highlighted underlying semantic relations or cue-based pragmatic signals; by contrast, the idiom program yielded item-specific learning with minimal near-term transfer. Limited follow-up data suggested short-term maintenance where assessed. Reported variability across individuals was substantial, underscoring the influence of underlying structural-language skills and social-pragmatic demands. Overall, the evidence indicates that figurative-language skills in ASD are amenable to targeted intervention; effective programs tend to combine explicit teaching, visual supports, multiple exemplars, and planned generalization opportunities. Given small samples and methodological heterogeneity, further classroom-based trials with longer follow-up and detailed learner profiles are needed. The findings support integrating figurative-language goals within individualized education and speech-language therapy plans, while aligning instructional complexity with each learner's linguistic and pragmatic profile.
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.