The added value of the combined use of the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised and the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule : diagnostic validity in a clinical Swedish sample of toddlers and young preschoolers
(2015) In Autism 19(2). p.99-187- Abstract
The diagnostic validity of the new research algorithms of the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised and the revised algorithms of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule was examined in a clinical sample of children aged 18-47 months. Validity was determined for each instrument separately and their combination against a clinical consensus diagnosis. A total of N = 268 children (n = 171 with autism spectrum disorder) were assessed. The new Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised algorithms (research cutoff) gave excellent specificities (91%-96%) but low sensitivities (44%-52%). Applying adjusted cutoffs (lower than recommended based on receiver operating characteristics) yielded a better balance between sensitivity (77%-82%) and specificity... (More)
The diagnostic validity of the new research algorithms of the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised and the revised algorithms of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule was examined in a clinical sample of children aged 18-47 months. Validity was determined for each instrument separately and their combination against a clinical consensus diagnosis. A total of N = 268 children (n = 171 with autism spectrum disorder) were assessed. The new Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised algorithms (research cutoff) gave excellent specificities (91%-96%) but low sensitivities (44%-52%). Applying adjusted cutoffs (lower than recommended based on receiver operating characteristics) yielded a better balance between sensitivity (77%-82%) and specificity (60%-62%). Findings for the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule were consistent with previous studies showing high sensitivity (94%-100%) and alongside lower specificity (52%-76%) when using the autism spectrum cutoff, but better balanced sensitivity (81%-94%) and specificity (81%-83%) when using the autism cutoff. A combination of both the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (with adjusted cutoff) and the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (autism spectrum cutoff) yielded balanced sensitivity (77%-80%) and specificity (87%-90%). Results favor a combined usage of the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised and Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule in young children with unclear developmental problems, including suspicion of autism spectrum disorder. Evaluated separately, the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (cutoff for autism) provides a better diagnostic accuracy than the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised.
(Less)
- author
- Zander, Eric LU ; Sturm, Harald and Bölte, Sven
- publishing date
- 2015-02
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Algorithms, Child Development Disorders, Pervasive/diagnosis, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Infant, Interview, Psychological/methods, Male, Psychometrics, ROC Curve, Reproducibility of Results, Sensitivity and Specificity, Sweden
- in
- Autism
- volume
- 19
- issue
- 2
- pages
- 13 pages
- publisher
- SAGE Publications
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:84898435570
- pmid:24413849
- ISSN
- 1362-3613
- DOI
- 10.1177/1362361313516199
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- no
- additional info
- © The Author(s) 2014.
- id
- 4cb17b82-6729-4763-8441-5b2bad53243c
- date added to LUP
- 2019-05-29 22:20:11
- date last changed
- 2024-07-09 16:24:09
@article{4cb17b82-6729-4763-8441-5b2bad53243c,
abstract = {{<p>The diagnostic validity of the new research algorithms of the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised and the revised algorithms of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule was examined in a clinical sample of children aged 18-47 months. Validity was determined for each instrument separately and their combination against a clinical consensus diagnosis. A total of N = 268 children (n = 171 with autism spectrum disorder) were assessed. The new Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised algorithms (research cutoff) gave excellent specificities (91%-96%) but low sensitivities (44%-52%). Applying adjusted cutoffs (lower than recommended based on receiver operating characteristics) yielded a better balance between sensitivity (77%-82%) and specificity (60%-62%). Findings for the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule were consistent with previous studies showing high sensitivity (94%-100%) and alongside lower specificity (52%-76%) when using the autism spectrum cutoff, but better balanced sensitivity (81%-94%) and specificity (81%-83%) when using the autism cutoff. A combination of both the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (with adjusted cutoff) and the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (autism spectrum cutoff) yielded balanced sensitivity (77%-80%) and specificity (87%-90%). Results favor a combined usage of the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised and Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule in young children with unclear developmental problems, including suspicion of autism spectrum disorder. Evaluated separately, the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (cutoff for autism) provides a better diagnostic accuracy than the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised. </p>}},
author = {{Zander, Eric and Sturm, Harald and Bölte, Sven}},
issn = {{1362-3613}},
keywords = {{Algorithms; Child Development Disorders, Pervasive/diagnosis; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Infant; Interview, Psychological/methods; Male; Psychometrics; ROC Curve; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Sweden}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{2}},
pages = {{99--187}},
publisher = {{SAGE Publications}},
series = {{Autism}},
title = {{The added value of the combined use of the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised and the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule : diagnostic validity in a clinical Swedish sample of toddlers and young preschoolers}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362361313516199}},
doi = {{10.1177/1362361313516199}},
volume = {{19}},
year = {{2015}},
}