Skip to Main Content
TABLE 1

Sample and Methodological Characteristics of Correlation Studies (n = 20)

Author (Date)ASD Sample, NSample Inclusion CriteriaCharacteristics of Individuals With ASDData SetAnalytic MethodsTheory or Framework
Age, y% Male% WhiteCommunication Ability
Anderson et al18 (2014) 620 Young adults who received special education services under the autism category 21–25 85 70 Thirteen percent had no trouble, 40% had little trouble, and 30% had a lot of trouble communicating. Seventeen percent did not communicate at all. NLTS2a Logistic regression NR 
Bouck and Joshi19 (2015) Weighted, 4995 Students who had autism as a primary disability category on their IEP 14–20 95 62 NR NLTS2a Logistic regression NR 
Cheak-Zamora et al20 (2012) 806 Youth with ASD 12–17 78 67 NR 2005–2006 NS-CSHCNb Logistic regression NR 
Chiang et al21 (2012) 430 High school leavers who received special education services under the autism category 19–23 84 70 Twelve percent did not have verbal skills. NLTS2a χ2; logistic regression NR 
Chiang et al22 (2013) Weighted, 4116 High school leavers who received special education services under the autism category Mean: 21 85 85 Two percent did not have verbal skills. NLTS2a χ2; logistic regression NR 
Cimera et al23 (2013) 906 Young adults with a primary or secondary diagnosis of autism who received vocational rehabilitation services and had a high school IEP Mean: 20 84–86 (strata) 81–83 NR RSA-911c Trend analysis; group comparisons t test NR 
Griffin et al24 (2013) 320 Students with ASD who received special education services 16–20 NR 67 Nineteen percent had no trouble, 66% had little trouble, and 16% had a lot of trouble with receptive communication. Thirty-five percent had no trouble, 44% had little trouble, and 16% had a lot of trouble with expressive communication. NLTS2a Logistic regression NR 
Kirby25 (2016) 770 Students with ASD with a district-provided diagnosis of autism and/or a parent confirmation of an autism diagnosis 13–17, first wave 83 56 NR NLTS2a Correlation; structural equation modeling Expectancy- value theory of achievement motivation 
Liptak et al26 (2011) 725 Students with ASD who received special education services 17–21 82 75 Thirteen percent had no trouble, 34% had little trouble, and 39% had much trouble conversing. Fourteen percent did not converse at all. NLTS2a Logistic regression; structural equation modeling World Health Organization ICF framework 
Myers et al27 (2015) Weighted, 17 818 High school leavers who received special education services under the autism category 21–26 83 73 Forty percent had no trouble, 34% had little trouble, and 24% had a lot of trouble communicating. Seventeen percent did not communicate at all. NLTS2a Logistic regression NR 
Narendorf et al28 (2011) 920 Students with ASD who received special education services Mean: 15 85 65 NR NLTS2a Logistic regression Andersen’s behavior model 
Orsmond et al29 (2013) 660 High school leavers who received special education services under the autism category 21–25 85 70 Twelve percent had no trouble, 41% had little trouble, and 30% had a lot of trouble conversing. Fourteen percent did not communicate at all. NLTS2a Logistic regression NR 
Rast et al30 (under review) 1119 Children with a parent-reported ASD diagnosis 12–17 NR 75 NR NS-CSHCNb Logistic regression Andersen’s behavior model 
Roux et al31 (2013) 620 High school leavers who received special education services under the autism category 21–25 85 70 Twelve percent had no trouble, 41% had little trouble, and 30% had much trouble conversing. Seventeen percent did not converse at all. NLTS2a Logistic regression NR 
Shattuck et al32 (2011) 410 Students with ASD who received special education services 19–23 86 75 Twenty-one percent were nonverbal. NLTS2a Logistic regression Life course 
Shattuck et al33 (2012) 500 Students with ASD who received special education services 19–23 87 74 Eighteen percent had no trouble, 43% had little trouble, and 26% had a lot of trouble conversing. Thirteen percent did not converse at all. NLTS2a Logistic regression NR 
Taylor and Seltzer38 (2011) 66 Youth who left high school between 2004 and 2008 with an autism diagnosis validated by ADI-R scores 19–26 80 90 Eighty percent were verbal. Longitudinal study of adolescents and adults with ASD χ2; 1-way ANOVA NR 
Taylor and Henninger35 (2015) 39 Young adults in their last year of high school with an autism diagnosis by ADOS scores 17–22 80 90 NR Sample of young adults with ASD Spearman ρ correlation; ordinal regression NR 
Wei et al36 (2015) 120 High school leavers who received special education services under the autism category Within 6 y of high school exit 87 84 Eighty-four percent had little or no trouble carrying on a conversation. NLTS2a Life course sequence analysis; logistic regression NR 
Wei et al37 (2014) 210 College students who received special education services under the autism category 13–17, first wave 85 81 Twenty-five percent had no trouble, 55% had little trouble, and 20% had a lot of trouble communicating or did not communicate at all. NLTS2a Logistic regression NR 
Author (Date)ASD Sample, NSample Inclusion CriteriaCharacteristics of Individuals With ASDData SetAnalytic MethodsTheory or Framework
Age, y% Male% WhiteCommunication Ability
Anderson et al18 (2014) 620 Young adults who received special education services under the autism category 21–25 85 70 Thirteen percent had no trouble, 40% had little trouble, and 30% had a lot of trouble communicating. Seventeen percent did not communicate at all. NLTS2a Logistic regression NR 
Bouck and Joshi19 (2015) Weighted, 4995 Students who had autism as a primary disability category on their IEP 14–20 95 62 NR NLTS2a Logistic regression NR 
Cheak-Zamora et al20 (2012) 806 Youth with ASD 12–17 78 67 NR 2005–2006 NS-CSHCNb Logistic regression NR 
Chiang et al21 (2012) 430 High school leavers who received special education services under the autism category 19–23 84 70 Twelve percent did not have verbal skills. NLTS2a χ2; logistic regression NR 
Chiang et al22 (2013) Weighted, 4116 High school leavers who received special education services under the autism category Mean: 21 85 85 Two percent did not have verbal skills. NLTS2a χ2; logistic regression NR 
Cimera et al23 (2013) 906 Young adults with a primary or secondary diagnosis of autism who received vocational rehabilitation services and had a high school IEP Mean: 20 84–86 (strata) 81–83 NR RSA-911c Trend analysis; group comparisons t test NR 
Griffin et al24 (2013) 320 Students with ASD who received special education services 16–20 NR 67 Nineteen percent had no trouble, 66% had little trouble, and 16% had a lot of trouble with receptive communication. Thirty-five percent had no trouble, 44% had little trouble, and 16% had a lot of trouble with expressive communication. NLTS2a Logistic regression NR 
Kirby25 (2016) 770 Students with ASD with a district-provided diagnosis of autism and/or a parent confirmation of an autism diagnosis 13–17, first wave 83 56 NR NLTS2a Correlation; structural equation modeling Expectancy- value theory of achievement motivation 
Liptak et al26 (2011) 725 Students with ASD who received special education services 17–21 82 75 Thirteen percent had no trouble, 34% had little trouble, and 39% had much trouble conversing. Fourteen percent did not converse at all. NLTS2a Logistic regression; structural equation modeling World Health Organization ICF framework 
Myers et al27 (2015) Weighted, 17 818 High school leavers who received special education services under the autism category 21–26 83 73 Forty percent had no trouble, 34% had little trouble, and 24% had a lot of trouble communicating. Seventeen percent did not communicate at all. NLTS2a Logistic regression NR 
Narendorf et al28 (2011) 920 Students with ASD who received special education services Mean: 15 85 65 NR NLTS2a Logistic regression Andersen’s behavior model 
Orsmond et al29 (2013) 660 High school leavers who received special education services under the autism category 21–25 85 70 Twelve percent had no trouble, 41% had little trouble, and 30% had a lot of trouble conversing. Fourteen percent did not communicate at all. NLTS2a Logistic regression NR 
Rast et al30 (under review) 1119 Children with a parent-reported ASD diagnosis 12–17 NR 75 NR NS-CSHCNb Logistic regression Andersen’s behavior model 
Roux et al31 (2013) 620 High school leavers who received special education services under the autism category 21–25 85 70 Twelve percent had no trouble, 41% had little trouble, and 30% had much trouble conversing. Seventeen percent did not converse at all. NLTS2a Logistic regression NR 
Shattuck et al32 (2011) 410 Students with ASD who received special education services 19–23 86 75 Twenty-one percent were nonverbal. NLTS2a Logistic regression Life course 
Shattuck et al33 (2012) 500 Students with ASD who received special education services 19–23 87 74 Eighteen percent had no trouble, 43% had little trouble, and 26% had a lot of trouble conversing. Thirteen percent did not converse at all. NLTS2a Logistic regression NR 
Taylor and Seltzer38 (2011) 66 Youth who left high school between 2004 and 2008 with an autism diagnosis validated by ADI-R scores 19–26 80 90 Eighty percent were verbal. Longitudinal study of adolescents and adults with ASD χ2; 1-way ANOVA NR 
Taylor and Henninger35 (2015) 39 Young adults in their last year of high school with an autism diagnosis by ADOS scores 17–22 80 90 NR Sample of young adults with ASD Spearman ρ correlation; ordinal regression NR 
Wei et al36 (2015) 120 High school leavers who received special education services under the autism category Within 6 y of high school exit 87 84 Eighty-four percent had little or no trouble carrying on a conversation. NLTS2a Life course sequence analysis; logistic regression NR 
Wei et al37 (2014) 210 College students who received special education services under the autism category 13–17, first wave 85 81 Twenty-five percent had no trouble, 55% had little trouble, and 20% had a lot of trouble communicating or did not communicate at all. NLTS2a Logistic regression NR 

ADI-R, Autism Diagnostic Interview, Revised; ADOS, Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule; ANOVA, analysis of variance; ICF, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health; IEP, individualized education plan; NLTS2, National Longitudinal Transition Survey-2; NR, not reported; NS-CSHCN, National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs; RSA-911, Rehabilitation Service Administration Case Service Report.

a

The authors of the NLTS-2 manage a nationally representative sample of high school students who received special education services in 2000 over a 10-y period. Data were collected from 2001 to 2009.

b

NS-CSHCN is a national survey of parents of children, ages 0 to 17 y, with special health care needs.

c

The RSA-911 collects administrative data on all individuals who applied for and received vocational rehabilitation services in a given year.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal