Although research in autism has grown more sophisticated, the gap between research knowledge and applicability of research in real world settings has grown. There have been a number of different reviews of evidence-based practices of treatments for young children with autism. Reviews which have critically evaluated the empirical evidence have not found any treatments that can be considered evidence-based. Reasons for this shortcoming are explored, and a new method for the evaluation of empirical evidence is provided. Future uses of this evaluative method are provided as well as a discussion of how this tool might aid in narrowing the research to practice gap.