ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2026
Teaching Theory of Mind Skills to Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn this study, we examined the effectiveness of Theory of Mind (ToM) intervention programs on the ToM skills of individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted in Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCO ERIC, Academic Search Complete, PubMed, ProQuest, and the Türkiye Council of Higher Education Thesis Center, completed on January 5, 2024. Studies were included if published in English or Turkish, involved participants with ASD, implemented interventions targeting ToM, used at least one ToM assessment tool, employed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or quasi-experimental design, and provided sufficient data for meta-analysis. Methodological quality was evaluated using What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards. The meta-analysis used a fixed-effects model with Hedges' g in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software 4.
resultsWe identified 20 studies (n = 924) meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 15 were included in the meta-analysis. Most interventions targeted understanding first- and second-order false beliefs and frequently used role-play and picture-based storytelling techniques. The results indicated a moderate positive effect (g = 0.492, 95% CI [0.322, 0.662]). Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences based on study characteristics.
conclusionFindings should be interpreted cautiously due to publication bias, small sample sizes, and the lack of IQ, language, or prerequisite skill assessments. Crucially, insufficient reporting of social validity and generalization represents a major barrier to assessing real-world utility. Future research must prioritize rigorous RCTs and systematic functional reporting to strengthen the evidence base.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42319689What 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.