There is a robust base of empirical evidence which supports Floortime as a framework for child development. Although Floortime has resulted from over 50 years of study and research, over the last 20 years we have witnessed the appearance of more literature and research reviews which back Floortime as an approach that produces statistically significant improvements in children with autism as well a reduction in parental stress. Most of the body of literature comes from multidisciplinary fields such as psychology, medicine, education, the study of language, attention, mental health, infant development, sensory processing, and motor development. and involves measuring outcomes such as communication capacities, socialisation, functional development to name a few. Among the scientific methods used to prove the efficiency of Floortime, it is possible to mention case studies, randomised controlled trial studies and group design studies.

The claim that Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA), the most popular type of intervention, is more efficient than Developmental Relationship-Based Intervention such as Floortime has been under careful consideration. Thorough analyses of past research into the efficiency of ABA have concluded that the studies which supported ABA were not as reliable as once believed, as they did not consist of randomised controlled trials. In addition, the studies on behavioural approaches tended to measure specific targeted behaviours rather than an individual’s ability to apply a new skill in context. The targeted behaviours which are often measured in ABA such as sitting at a desk or being able to imitate and sort shapes are not normally within the core deficits which children with ASD present. The core deficits are related to engaging with others with warmth and intimacy through reciprocal interactions with emotional gesturing, smiles, vocalisations using imaginative language and ideas meaningfully and creatively.