Screen to Screen Versus Face to Face: Evaluating Telehealth Autism Diagnostic Assessments for Young Children in a Diverse Clinical Setting.

IF 5.6
Rebecca Sutherland, Marie Antoinette Hodge, Kelsie Boulton, Sarah Baracz, Gillian Brooks, Beverley Bennett, Natalie Ong, Angela Papanicolaou, Gail Tomsic, Marcia Williamsz, Adam Guastella, Natalie Silove
{"title":"Screen to Screen Versus Face to Face: Evaluating Telehealth Autism Diagnostic Assessments for Young Children in a Diverse Clinical Setting.","authors":"Rebecca Sutherland, Marie Antoinette Hodge, Kelsie Boulton, Sarah Baracz, Gillian Brooks, Beverley Bennett, Natalie Ong, Angela Papanicolaou, Gail Tomsic, Marcia Williamsz, Adam Guastella, Natalie Silove","doi":"10.1002/aur.70113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Access to autism diagnostic assessments continues to be problematic for many families and children. While telehealth assessments have been shown to be feasible and reliable in research settings, less is known about the agreement between telehealth autism assessments compared with in-person evaluations in clinical settings with linguistic, cultural, and social diversity. Twenty-one minimally verbal children (between 23.9 and 51.7 months, mean = 36.5 months, SD = 8 months) participated in a telehealth autism assessment (the TELE-ASD-PEDS; TAP) with a parent, and then in an in-person, multidisciplinary team assessment. Telehealth clinicians were blinded to history and questionnaire information; in-person clinicians were blinded to the telehealth results. Assessment results in each setting, along with diagnostic impression (telehealth) and diagnostic outcome (in-person), were compared. Assessment scores across the settings showed very good agreement and were strongly correlated (r = 0.75, p < 0.001). There was diagnostic agreement (either autism/autism or no-autism/no-autism) for 19/21 children, or 90% of the participants. This study adds to the growing literature on autism diagnostic assessments administered via telehealth. Our research builds on previous work by comparing telehealth findings directly with in-person assessment and diagnostic results. The results of the present study yielded high rates of diagnostic agreement as well as strong agreement between telehealth and in-person assessment scores for young children with limited language and high levels of autism symptoms, which to our knowledge, have not to date been directly compared.</p>","PeriodicalId":72339,"journal":{"name":"Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.70113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Access to autism diagnostic assessments continues to be problematic for many families and children. While telehealth assessments have been shown to be feasible and reliable in research settings, less is known about the agreement between telehealth autism assessments compared with in-person evaluations in clinical settings with linguistic, cultural, and social diversity. Twenty-one minimally verbal children (between 23.9 and 51.7 months, mean = 36.5 months, SD = 8 months) participated in a telehealth autism assessment (the TELE-ASD-PEDS; TAP) with a parent, and then in an in-person, multidisciplinary team assessment. Telehealth clinicians were blinded to history and questionnaire information; in-person clinicians were blinded to the telehealth results. Assessment results in each setting, along with diagnostic impression (telehealth) and diagnostic outcome (in-person), were compared. Assessment scores across the settings showed very good agreement and were strongly correlated (r = 0.75, p < 0.001). There was diagnostic agreement (either autism/autism or no-autism/no-autism) for 19/21 children, or 90% of the participants. This study adds to the growing literature on autism diagnostic assessments administered via telehealth. Our research builds on previous work by comparing telehealth findings directly with in-person assessment and diagnostic results. The results of the present study yielded high rates of diagnostic agreement as well as strong agreement between telehealth and in-person assessment scores for young children with limited language and high levels of autism symptoms, which to our knowledge, have not to date been directly compared.

筛查与面对面:在不同的临床环境中评估幼儿远程医疗自闭症诊断评估。
对许多家庭和儿童来说,获得自闭症诊断评估仍然是个问题。虽然远程医疗评估在研究环境中已被证明是可行和可靠的,但在语言、文化和社会多样性的临床环境中,远程医疗自闭症评估与面对面评估之间的一致性尚不清楚。21名最低语言能力儿童(23.9 ~ 51.7个月,平均36.5个月,SD = 8个月)参加了远程医疗自闭症评估(TELE-ASD-PEDS;(TAP),然后进行面对面的多学科团队评估。远程医疗临床医生对病史和问卷信息不知情;现场临床医生对远程医疗结果不知情。对每种情况下的评估结果以及诊断印象(远程医疗)和诊断结果(面对面)进行了比较。各设置的评估得分显示出非常好的一致性和强相关性(r = 0.75, p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信