Chui Mae Wong, Nurhafizah Mohd Zambri, Hui Hua Fan, Lily H S Lau, L Mary Daniel, Hwan Cui Koh
{"title":"A Direct Comparison of Three Screening Methods for Autism Spectrum Disorder in a High-Likelihood Sibling Population.","authors":"Chui Mae Wong, Nurhafizah Mohd Zambri, Hui Hua Fan, Lily H S Lau, L Mary Daniel, Hwan Cui Koh","doi":"10.1007/s10803-024-06294-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Targeted screening of children at increased likelihood of autism is recommended. However, autism screening tools are usually validated for use mainly in low-likelihood populations. This study compared the accuracy of the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers, Revised with Follow-up (M-CHAT-R/F), the ASDetect app, and the Social Attention and Communication Surveillance, Revised (SACS-R). Siblings of autistic children underwent autism screening at 12, 18 and 30 months old. At each visit, caregivers completed the M-CHAT-R/F and ASDetect while trained nurses tested the siblings using the SACS-R. At 36 to 48 months, the siblings underwent an Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Second Edition (ADOS-2) assessment. 189 siblings were screened, 141 completed the study, and 32 were confirmed to have autism. Although not validated for use at 12 months, the M-CHAT-R/F had the best sensitivity among the three tools for this age group, suggesting that early signs are already apparent to caregivers. The M-CHAT-R/F had overall better sensitivity (0.72-0.83) across all age groups, but with overall lower specificity (0.55-0.77). The SACS-R and ASDetect had better positive predictive values at 18 and 30 months (0.60-0.68), while the M-CHAT-R/F was 0.43-0.48. Negative predictive values were generally high across all three tools across all age groups (0.78-0.93). Targeted screening of children at high likelihood of autism yielded a detection rate of 22.7% and should therefore be implemented routinely to facilitate early detection and intervention. The performance of autism screening tools should be examined in higher-likelihood populations for targeted screening of these children.</p>","PeriodicalId":15148,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders","volume":" ","pages":"1274-1285"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-024-06294-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Targeted screening of children at increased likelihood of autism is recommended. However, autism screening tools are usually validated for use mainly in low-likelihood populations. This study compared the accuracy of the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers, Revised with Follow-up (M-CHAT-R/F), the ASDetect app, and the Social Attention and Communication Surveillance, Revised (SACS-R). Siblings of autistic children underwent autism screening at 12, 18 and 30 months old. At each visit, caregivers completed the M-CHAT-R/F and ASDetect while trained nurses tested the siblings using the SACS-R. At 36 to 48 months, the siblings underwent an Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Second Edition (ADOS-2) assessment. 189 siblings were screened, 141 completed the study, and 32 were confirmed to have autism. Although not validated for use at 12 months, the M-CHAT-R/F had the best sensitivity among the three tools for this age group, suggesting that early signs are already apparent to caregivers. The M-CHAT-R/F had overall better sensitivity (0.72-0.83) across all age groups, but with overall lower specificity (0.55-0.77). The SACS-R and ASDetect had better positive predictive values at 18 and 30 months (0.60-0.68), while the M-CHAT-R/F was 0.43-0.48. Negative predictive values were generally high across all three tools across all age groups (0.78-0.93). Targeted screening of children at high likelihood of autism yielded a detection rate of 22.7% and should therefore be implemented routinely to facilitate early detection and intervention. The performance of autism screening tools should be examined in higher-likelihood populations for targeted screening of these children.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders seeks to advance theoretical and applied research as well as examine and evaluate clinical diagnoses and treatments for autism and related disabilities. JADD encourages research submissions on the causes of ASDs and related disorders, including genetic, immunological, and environmental factors; diagnosis and assessment tools (e.g., for early detection as well as behavioral and communications characteristics); and prevention and treatment options. Sample topics include: Social responsiveness in young children with autism Advances in diagnosing and reporting autism Omega-3 fatty acids to treat autism symptoms Parental and child adherence to behavioral and medical treatments for autism Increasing independent task completion by students with autism spectrum disorder Does laughter differ in children with autism? Predicting ASD diagnosis and social impairment in younger siblings of children with autism The effects of psychotropic and nonpsychotropic medication with adolescents and adults with ASD Increasing independence for individuals with ASDs Group interventions to promote social skills in school-aged children with ASDs Standard diagnostic measures for ASDs Substance abuse in adults with autism Differentiating between ADHD and autism symptoms Social competence and social skills training and interventions for children with ASDs Therapeutic horseback riding and social functioning in children with autism Authors and readers of the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders include sch olars, researchers, professionals, policy makers, and graduate students from a broad range of cross-disciplines, including developmental, clinical child, and school psychology; pediatrics; psychiatry; education; social work and counseling; speech, communication, and physical therapy; medicine and neuroscience; and public health.