Using Parent Target Problem Narratives to Evaluate Outcomes in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

This paper examines the reliability and validity of parent target problems (PTPs) in a multi-site randomized controlled trial of parent training (PT) versus psychoeducation (PEP) in children (150 boys, 19 girls; mean age 4.7 ± 1.2 years) with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and disruptive behavior. At baseline, treatment blind, independent evaluators asked parents to nominate the child's top two problems. Each problem was documented in a brief narrative. Narratives were reviewed and revised at follow-up visits during the six-month trial. When the trial was completed, five judges, blind to treatment condition, independently rated change from baseline on a 9-point scale (1 = normal; 2 = markedly improved; 3 = definitely improved; 4 = equivocally improved; 5 = no change; 6 = possibly worse; 7 = definitely worse; 8 = markedly worse; 9 = disastrously worse) at Weeks 8, 12, 16, and 24 (inter-rater intraclass correlation = 0.78). PTP scores for the two target problems were averaged across the five raters, yielding a mean score for each child at each time point. Mean PTP scores showed improvement in both treatment groups over the 24-week study. Compared to PEP, PTP ratings showed a steeper decline in PT based on significant interaction of group and time (t(df) = 2.14(155.9), p = 0.034; Week 24 effect size = 0.75). In categorical analysis, we compared cutoffs mean PTP scores of 3.0 (definitely improved), 3.25, and 3.5 with the positive response rate on the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale from the original study. Sensitivities ranged from 52-78%. PTP narratives offer a systematic, reliable, and valid way to track child-specific outcomes in clinical trials and clinical practice.