Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

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

Zander, Eric LU ; Sturm, Harald and Bölte, Sven (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)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; and
publishing date
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
  • pmid:24413849
  • scopus:84898435570
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
2024-06-26 19:14:20
@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}},
}