Phuong H Nguyen1,2, Maku E Ocansey3, Meghan Miller4, Dung T K Le2, Rebecca J Schmidt5, Elizabeth L Prado3. 1. Poverty, Health and Nutrition Division, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, District of Columbia. 2. Department of Science, Technology and International Cooperation, Thai Nguyen University of Pharmacy and Medicine, Thai Nguyen, Vietnam. 3. Program in International and Community Nutrition, University of California Davis, Davis, California. 4. Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences and Medical Investigation of Neurodevelopmental Disorders Institute, University of California Davis, Davis, California. 5. Department of Public Health Sciences and Medical Investigation of Neurodevelopmental Disorders Institute, University of California Davis, Davis, California.
Abstract
The Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS) has been validated in high-income countries but not yet in low- and middle-income countries. We aimed to assess the reliability of the SRS in a community sample and its validity to discriminate between children with and without autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in Vietnam. We used a three-phase study: piloting the translated SRS, reliability testing, and validation of the SRS in 158 Vietnamese caretakers and their children (ages 4-9 years). We examined reliability, validity and sensitivity, and specificity to ASD diagnosis. We applied receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis to determine optimal cutoff scores discriminating the children with ASD from those without ASD. We also assessed the performance of the SRS short form. We found that reliability was good with high internal consistency (0.88-0.89), test-retest reliability (0.82-0.83), sensitivity (93%), and specificity (98%) for identification of children with ASD. The ROC curves were similar for total raw score and total T-score, with the area under the curve (AUC) values reaching 0.98 and the optimal cutoff of 62 for raw scores and 60 for T-scores. The SRS short form also performed well in distinguishing children with ASD from children without ASD, with high AUC (0.98), sensitivity (90%), and specificity (98%) when using a raw score of 15 as a cutoff. In conclusion, the translated and culturally adapted SRS shows good reliability, validity, and sensitivity for identification of children with ASD in Vietnam. Both SRS long and short forms performed adequately to discriminate between children with and without ASD. Autism Res 2019, 00: 1-13.
The Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS) has been validated in high-income countries but not yet in low- and middle-income countries. We aimed to assess the reliability of the SRS in a community sample and its validity to discriminate between children with and without autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in Vietnam. We used a three-phase study: piloting the translated SRS, reliability testing, and validation of the SRS in 158 Vietnamese caretakers and their children (ages 4-9 years). We examined reliability, validity and sensitivity, and specificity to ASD diagnosis. We applied receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis to determine optimal cutoff scores discriminating the children with ASD from those without ASD. We also assessed the performance of the SRS short form. We found that reliability was good with high internal consistency (0.88-0.89), test-retest reliability (0.82-0.83), sensitivity (93%), and specificity (98%) for identification of children with ASD. The ROC curves were similar for total raw score and total T-score, with the area under the curve (AUC) values reaching 0.98 and the optimal cutoff of 62 for raw scores and 60 for T-scores. The SRS short form also performed well in distinguishing children with ASD from children without ASD, with high AUC (0.98), sensitivity (90%), and specificity (98%) when using a raw score of 15 as a cutoff. In conclusion, the translated and culturally adapted SRS shows good reliability, validity, and sensitivity for identification of children with ASD in Vietnam. Both SRS long and short forms performed adequately to discriminate between children with and without ASD. Autism Res 2019, 00: 1-13.
Authors: Joseph M Braun; Tanya Froehlich; Amy Kalkbrenner; Christine M Pfeiffer; Zia Fazili; Kimberly Yolton; Bruce P Lanphear Journal: J Autism Dev Disord Date: 2014-10
Authors: Margaret Semrud-Clikeman; Regilda Anne A Romero; Elizabeth L Prado; Elsa G Shapiro; Paul Bangirana; Chandy C John Journal: Child Neuropsychol Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: John N Constantino; Sandra A Davis; Richard D Todd; Matthew K Schindler; Maggie M Gross; Susan L Brophy; Lisa M Metzger; Christiana S Shoushtari; Reagan Splinter; Wendy Reich Journal: J Autism Dev Disord Date: 2003-08
Authors: Kristen Lyall; Mina Hosseini; Christine Ladd-Acosta; Xuejuan Ning; Diane Catellier; John N Constantino; Lisa A Croen; Aaron J Kaat; Kelly Botteron; Nicole R Bush; Stephen R Dager; Cristiane S Duarte; M Daniele Fallin; Heather Hazlett; Irva Hertz-Picciotto; Robert M Joseph; Margaret R Karagas; Susan Korrick; Rebecca Landa; Daniel Messinger; Emily Oken; Sally Ozonoff; Joseph Piven; Juhi Pandey; Sheela Sathyanarayana; Robert T Schultz; Tanya St John; Rebecca Schmidt; Heather Volk; Craig J Newschaffer Journal: J Autism Dev Disord Date: 2021-07
Authors: Muideen O Bakare; Thomas W Frazier; Arun Karpur; Amina Abubakar; Moses Kachama Nyongesa; Paul Murimu Mwangi; Pamela Dixon; Izma Khaliq; Natalie K Gase; Jonathan Sandstrom; Nwanze Okidegbe; Michael Rosanoff; Kerim M Munir; Andy Shih Journal: Autism Date: 2022-03-09
Authors: Jürgen Germann; Flavia Venetucci Gouveia; Helena Brentani; Saashi A Bedford; Stephanie Tullo; M Mallar Chakravarty; Gabriel A Devenyi Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-10-27 Impact factor: 4.379