Marios Adamou1, Sarah L Jones2,3, Stephanie Wetherhill4. 1. University of Hudderfield, Huddersfield, UK. 2. South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Wakefield, UK. sarah.jones1@swyt.nhs.uk. 3. Manygates Clinic, Belle Isle Health Park, Portobello Road, Wakefield, WF1 5PN, UK. sarah.jones1@swyt.nhs.uk. 4. Leeds Community Healthcare, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, Second Edition (ADOS-2) module four assessment for diagnosing autism spectrum disorder in adults has shown good sensitivity and specificity in research settings. METHOD: This study aimed to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the ADOS-2 module four by investigating the components of the assessment, in relation to diagnostic outcome in a clinical setting. Data from 88 service users referred to a Specialist Adult Autism Service was explored. RESULTS: ADOS-2 scores failed to predict the diagnostic outcome (overall sensitivity = 92%, specificity = 57%). Interestingly, scores from the 'restricted interests' component of the ADOS-2 have the potential to predict diagnostic outcome, despite this domain not been included in the scoring algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, we recommend clinicians are cautious when interpreting results of the ADOS-2 assessment.
BACKGROUND: The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, Second Edition (ADOS-2) module four assessment for diagnosing autism spectrum disorder in adults has shown good sensitivity and specificity in research settings. METHOD: This study aimed to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the ADOS-2 module four by investigating the components of the assessment, in relation to diagnostic outcome in a clinical setting. Data from 88 service users referred to a Specialist Adult Autism Service was explored. RESULTS: ADOS-2 scores failed to predict the diagnostic outcome (overall sensitivity = 92%, specificity = 57%). Interestingly, scores from the 'restricted interests' component of the ADOS-2 have the potential to predict diagnostic outcome, despite this domain not been included in the scoring algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, we recommend clinicians are cautious when interpreting results of the ADOS-2 assessment.
Authors: Karlijn J van Stralen; Vianda S Stel; Johannes B Reitsma; Friedo W Dekker; Carmine Zoccali; Kitty J Jager Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2009-04-01 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Susan Risi; Catherine Lord; Katherine Gotham; Christina Corsello; Christina Chrysler; Peter Szatmari; Edwin H Cook; Bennett L Leventhal; Andrew Pickles Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Cara E Pugliese; Lauren Kenworthy; Vanessa Hus Bal; Gregory L Wallace; Benjamin E Yerys; Brenna B Maddox; Susan W White; Haroon Popal; Anna Chelsea Armour; Judith Miller; John D Herrington; Robert T Schultz; Alex Martin; Laura Gutermuth Anthony Journal: J Autism Dev Disord Date: 2015-12
Authors: Annelies de Bildt; Iris J Oosterling; Natasja D J van Lang; Sjoerd Sytema; Ruud B Minderaa; Herman van Engeland; Sascha Roos; Jan K Buitelaar; Rutger-Jan van der Gaag; Maretha V de Jonge Journal: J Autism Dev Disord Date: 2011-03
Authors: Franco De Crescenzo; Valentina Postorino; Martina Siracusano; Assia Riccioni; Marco Armando; Paolo Curatolo; Luigi Mazzone Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 4.157