A systematic review of interventions for echolalia in autistic children

Echolalia, the repetition of others' speech, is a common observation in autistic people. Research has established that echolalia is functional and meaningful for many; however, some clinicians and researchers continue to characterise it as pathological and in need of reduction. The aim of this systematic review was to understand the range and impact of interventions for echolalia in autistic children.

A systematic search was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A total of 15 studies met predetermined inclusion criteria. Screening, data extraction and quality rating using the Scientific Merit Rating Scale (SMRS) were performed in duplicate.

Ten interventions across 15 papers were found. Results indicated that interventions generally decreased levels of echolalia. However, there were considerable inconsistencies in the definitions and conceptualisations of echolalia, administration, generalisation techniques and the measures used. The quality of the studies was very low.

Interventions for echolalia vary widely in terms of administration and measurement. There is limited consensus on the definition of echolalia among the reviewed studies, and no evidence that echolalia is recognised as functional or meaningful to the autistic children. Further, the lack of methodological rigour makes it difficult to draw clinical conclusions about the interventions.

What is already known Echolalia is the immediate or delayed repetition of others' speech and is a common observation in autistic children and in some older autistic people. While research and practice has established that echolalia is a functional and meaningful form of communication, particularly for those first developing spoken communication, some clinicians and researchers continue to characterise it as problematic and suggest that echolalia should be reduced or eliminated. What this study adds We systematically searched the literature about echolalia interventions to try to find out about the types of interventions that aim to reduce or eliminate echolalia. We found 15 studies on this topic. The way they defined echolalia was varied, and there was a range of interventions researched. None of the research papers recognised echolalia as functional or meaningful and the quality of the research was very low. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Clinicians, families and researchers should think carefully and critically about suggesting any programs or supports that aim to reduce echolalia as no recommendations can be drawn from the research we studied. Echolalia should be considered functional, and efforts made to understand the meaning and purpose of echolalic speech.