Susan Risi1, Catherine Lord2, Katherine Gotham2, Christina Corsello2, Christina Chrysler2, Peter Szatmari2, Edwin H Cook2, Bennett L Leventhal2, Andrew Pickles2. 1. Drs. Risi and Lord and Ms. Gotham are with the University of Michigan Autism and Communication Disorders Center, Ann Arbor; Dr. Corsello is with the Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego; Ms. Chrysler and Dr. Szatmari are with the Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada; Drs. Cook and Leventhal are with the Department of Psychiatry, University of Illinois at Chicago; Dr. Pickles is with the University of Manchester, United Kingdom. Electronic address: srisi@umich.edu. 2. Drs. Risi and Lord and Ms. Gotham are with the University of Michigan Autism and Communication Disorders Center, Ann Arbor; Dr. Corsello is with the Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego; Ms. Chrysler and Dr. Szatmari are with the Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada; Drs. Cook and Leventhal are with the Department of Psychiatry, University of Illinois at Chicago; Dr. Pickles is with the University of Manchester, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Standard case criteria are proposed for combined use of the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised and Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule to diagnose autism and to define the broader category of autism spectrum disorders. METHOD: Single and combined Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised and Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule algorithms were compared to best estimate diagnoses in four samples: U.S. (n = 960) and Canadian (n = 232) participants 3 years and older, U.S. participants younger than 36 months (n = 270), and U.S. participants older than 36 months with profound mental retardation (n = 67). RESULTS: Sensitivities and specificities of 80% and higher were obtained when strict criteria for an autism diagnosis using both instruments were applied in the U.S. samples, and 75% or greater in the Canadian sample. Single-instrument criteria resulted in significant loss of specificity. Specificity was poor in the sample with profound mental retardation. Lower sensitivity and specificity were also obtained when proposed criteria for broader spectrum disorders were applied. CONCLUSIONS: The Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised and Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule make independent, additive contributions to the judgment of clinicians that result in a more consistent and rigorous application of diagnostic criteria.
BACKGROUND: Standard case criteria are proposed for combined use of the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised and Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule to diagnose autism and to define the broader category of autism spectrum disorders. METHOD: Single and combined Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised and Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule algorithms were compared to best estimate diagnoses in four samples: U.S. (n = 960) and Canadian (n = 232) participants 3 years and older, U.S. participants younger than 36 months (n = 270), and U.S. participants older than 36 months with profound mental retardation (n = 67). RESULTS: Sensitivities and specificities of 80% and higher were obtained when strict criteria for an autism diagnosis using both instruments were applied in the U.S. samples, and 75% or greater in the Canadian sample. Single-instrument criteria resulted in significant loss of specificity. Specificity was poor in the sample with profound mental retardation. Lower sensitivity and specificity were also obtained when proposed criteria for broader spectrum disorders were applied. CONCLUSIONS: The Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised and Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule make independent, additive contributions to the judgment of clinicians that result in a more consistent and rigorous application of diagnostic criteria.
Authors: Rachel Nonkin Avchen; Lisa D Wiggins; Owen Devine; Kim Van Naarden Braun; Catherine Rice; Nancy C Hobson; Diana Schendel; Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp Journal: J Autism Dev Disord Date: 2011-02
Authors: Stelios Georgiades; Peter Szatmari; Eric Duku; Lonnie Zwaigenbaum; Susan Bryson; Wendy Roberts; Eric Fombonne; Pat Mirenda; Isabel Smith; Tracy Vaillancourt; Joanne Volden; Charlotte Waddell; Ann Thompson Journal: J Autism Dev Disord Date: 2011-10
Authors: Rainald Moessner; Christian R Marshall; James S Sutcliffe; Jennifer Skaug; Dalila Pinto; John Vincent; Lonnie Zwaigenbaum; Bridget Fernandez; Wendy Roberts; Peter Szatmari; Stephen W Scherer Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2007-10-16 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Wendy Froehlich; Sue Cleveland; Andrea Torres; Jennifer Phillips; Brianne Cohen; Tiffany Torigoe; Janet Miller; Angie Fedele; Jack Collins; Karen Smith; Linda Lotspeich; Lisa A Croen; Sally Ozonoff; Clara Lajonchere; Judith K Grether; Joachim Hallmayer Journal: J Autism Dev Disord Date: 2013-09