Changing conceptualizations of regression: What prospective studies reveal about the onset of autism spectrum disorder

Highlights

• Onset of ASD involves declines in key social and communication behaviors during the first and second years of life.

• Onset patterns are difficult to measure using retrospective methods, such as parent recall and analysis of home movies.

• This calls into question the results of previous studies that relied upon retrospective measurement.

• Prospective methods suggest that regressive onset patterns occur more frequently than previously realized.

• Regression in ASD is the rule, not the exception.

Abstract

Until the last decade, studies of the timing of early symptom emergence in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) relied upon retrospective methods. Recent investigations, however, are raising significant questions about the accuracy and validity of such data. Questions about when and how behavioral signs of autism emerge may be better answered through prospective studies, in which infants are enrolled near birth and followed longitudinally until the age at which ASD can be confidently diagnosed or ruled out. This review summarizes the results of recent studies that utilized prospective methods to study infants at high risk of developing ASD due to family history. Collectively, prospective studies demonstrate that the onset of ASD involves declines in the rates of key social and communication behaviors during the first years of life for most children. This corpus of literature suggests that regressive onset patterns occur much more frequently than previously recognized and may be the rule rather than the exception.

Introduction

The onset of behavioral signs of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is usually conceptualized as occurring in one of two ways: an early onset pattern, in which children demonstrate delays and deviances in social and communication development early in life, and a regressive pattern, in which children develop largely as expected for some period and then experience a substantial decline in or loss of previously developed skills. While it was long believed that the majority of children with ASD demonstrated an early onset pattern, more recent studies suggest that regressive onset occurs more frequently than previously recognized (Brignell et al., 2017; Hansen et al., 2008; Kern et al., 2015; Pickles et al., 2009; Shumway et al., 2011; Thurm et al., 2014; for a review, see meta-analysis by Barger et al., 2013). Studies occasionally also identify a third onset pattern, that of developmental stagnation or plateau (Shumway et al., 2011), that is characterized by intact early skills that fail to progress or transform into more advanced developmental achievements. This onset pattern is distinct from regression, in that the child does not lose acquired skills, but instead fails to make expected gains.

The most common procedure for collecting information about the timing of early symptoms is retrospective parent report. A number of factors can influence report validity, including awareness of the child’s eventual diagnosis and knowledge of developmental milestones. It has long been understood that retrospective reports are subject to problems of memory and interpretation (Finney, 1981; Henry et al., 1994; Pickles et al., 1996), including in studies of ASD (Andrews et al., 2002). Multiple studies have documented the ways in which recall problems and other biases can influence parent report. Changes in recall occur over time, with past events often reported to occur more recently, closer to the time of recollection, than they actually took place, an error called forward telescoping (Loftus and Marburger, 1983). Studies of children with ASD have demonstrated significant forward telescoping in parent report of milestones, resulting in parents being less likely to report regression and more likely to report early delays as their children grow older (Hus et al., 2011; Lord et al., 2004). A recent study from our research team (Ozonoff et al., 2018a) conducted longitudinal interviews with parents about onset of ASD symptoms when their child was 2–3 years old (Time 1) and approximately 6 years old (Time 2). Significant forward telescoping was found in both age of regression and age when milestones were achieved. The correspondence between Time 1 and Time 2 parent report of onset was low (kappa = .38). One-quarter of the sample changed onset categories, most often due to parents not recalling a regression at Time 2 that they had reported at Time 1.

Analysis of home movies of children later diagnosed with ASD is another retrospective method used in research studies to study symptom emergence (Goldberg et al., 2008; Palomo et al., 2006). Video analysis may be a more objective procedure for documenting early symptoms than parent recall (Werner and Dawson, 2005) but it is labor-intensive and subject to other limitations, such as selective recording (e.g., tendency of parents to film positive behaviors). In a study from our team that compared classification of onset based on coding of family movies to onset type as recalled by parents (Ozonoff et al., 2011a), less than half of children whose home video displayed clear evidence of a major decline in social and communication behavior were reported to have had a regression by parents. Similarly, only 40% of participants with clear evidence of early delays and little evidence of skill decline on video were reported by parents to show an early onset pattern.

Questions about when and how behavioral signs of autism emerge may be better answered through prospective investigations, in which infants are recruited and enrolled near birth, prior to the advent of parent concerns, and then followed longitudinally through the window of developmental risk, until the age at which ASD can be confidently diagnosed or ruled out, usually 36 months. A few large general population cohorts have been studied prospectively to examine onset patterns (Brignell et al., 2017; Havdahl et al., 2018) but this study design is inefficient, since fewer than 2 in 100 participants will develop ASD (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018), making it difficult to achieve an appropriate sample size. Additionally, large prospective cohort studies must, of necessity, rely upon parent questionnaires and rarely provide the opportunity for in-person clinical assessments to verify diagnosis or onset pattern.

For this reason, most prospective investigations utilize high-risk samples in order to increase the number of ASD outcomes that are informative for study. The most widely used high-risk group has been later-born siblings of children with ASD, who are known to be at higher ASD risk than the general population (Constantino et al., 2010). Most investigations compare high-risk infants to lower-risk participants with no known family history of ASD in first-, second-, and sometimes third-degree relatives. This study design improves on retrospective methods in a number of important ways. Serial comprehensive assessments, in standardized testing contexts, are used to document the timing of symptom emergence, thus avoiding reliance on potentially fallible parent recall or non-representative home video. Assessments can utilize a wide range of tools, including eye tracking, EEG, and imaging, allowing broader investigations of symptom onset and testing of specific hypotheses. And while most retrospective studies recruit samples through clinics, which may influence the results by including more severely affected children, infant sibling studies avoid such potential biases by ascertaining participants via family history alone.

Several recent papers provide comprehensive reviews of the infant sibling literature (Bölte et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2014; Pearson et al., 2018; Szatmari et al., 2016). Here we focus on research reports of greatest relevance to symptom emergence, specifically those that study infants beginning in the first year of life on measures that are appropriate for examining potential skill decline over time. Using a variety of different prospective methods, these studies have reported largely intact early development, followed by developmental declines and onset of symptoms around the first birthday and in the second year of life. For example, Zwaigenbaum et al. (2005), using the Autism Observation Scale for Infants (AOSI), reported no differences at 6 months between infants subsequently diagnosed with ASD and both high- and low-risk infants without ASD outcomes; significant group differences emerged at 12 months and increased over time. This pattern on the AOSI was later replicated by an independent research team (Gammer et al., 2015). Wan et al. (2013) found that infant-parent interaction quality at 6–10 months did not predict which children would be diagnosed with ASD at age 3, but by 12–15 months, such variables were significantly associated with diagnostic outcome. Similar findings of lack of early group differences (or lack of early predictive ability), followed by later divergence from typically developing infants, have been reported by Landa and Garrett-Mayer (2006) using the Mullen Scales of Early Learning, Rozga et al. (2011) in joint attention, Bedford et al. (2012) on a gaze-following eye-tracking task, Elsabbagh et al. (2013) on a gap-overlap attention task, and Wolff et al. (2014) studying repetitive behavior. In an incisive recent review that attempts to reconcile retrospective and prospective studies of regression and explore how study design affects the likelihood of capturing regression, Pearson et al. (2018) conclude that, among infants who later develop ASD, “the majority show declining fixation of eyes, gaze to faces, and social engagement, from typical levels in early infancy (2–6 months) to significantly reduced levels by 24–36 months (p. 14).”