自闭症谱系评定量表的标准有效性 教师报告

IF 1.5 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Amy Camodeca
{"title":"自闭症谱系评定量表的标准有效性 教师报告","authors":"Amy Camodeca","doi":"10.1177/07342829241234697","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is a need to investigate the diagnostic utility of autism diagnostic questionnaires in school-age children, who are increasingly being referred for autism assessment. Aside from the standardization sample, little research has been conducted on the Autism Spectrum Rating Scales, particularly regarding teacher reports. This study investigated the criterion validity of the Autism Spectrum Rating Scales-Teacher report for ages 6–18 (ASRS-T<jats:sub>6-18</jats:sub>) in a well-characterized community sample of 409 children (autism [AUT] n = 122; non-autism [NOT] n = 287; [Formula: see text] age = 9.91) evaluated with the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-2, a well-validated autism diagnostic measure. Significant mean differences with small to moderate effect sizes ( d = 0.28–0.56) were observed for all scores except Self-Regulation, Adult interaction, and Attention. Logistic Regression and Receiver Operating Characteristic analyses conducted for the Summary, ASRS, and two Treatment scales (Peer and Social-Emotional Reciprocity) indicated low ORs (&lt;|1.08|) and AUCs in the poor range (&lt;.67). Total and Unusual Behavior emerged as comparatively stronger scales with covariates (age and IQ); other scales were generally similar with/without control variables. Sensitivity and specificity could not be optimized. The suggested 60 t-cutpoint had fair or good sensitivity (76.23–83.61) for all examined scales except Unusual Behavior (68.03). However, specificity was poor (46.93–54.36), with high false positive rates (45.64%–63.07%). In complex community samples, the ASRS-T<jats:sub>6-18</jats:sub> behaves more like a screener as opposed to a diagnostic measure.","PeriodicalId":51446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Criterion Validity of the Autism Spectrum Rating Scales Teacher Report\",\"authors\":\"Amy Camodeca\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/07342829241234697\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There is a need to investigate the diagnostic utility of autism diagnostic questionnaires in school-age children, who are increasingly being referred for autism assessment. Aside from the standardization sample, little research has been conducted on the Autism Spectrum Rating Scales, particularly regarding teacher reports. This study investigated the criterion validity of the Autism Spectrum Rating Scales-Teacher report for ages 6–18 (ASRS-T<jats:sub>6-18</jats:sub>) in a well-characterized community sample of 409 children (autism [AUT] n = 122; non-autism [NOT] n = 287; [Formula: see text] age = 9.91) evaluated with the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-2, a well-validated autism diagnostic measure. Significant mean differences with small to moderate effect sizes ( d = 0.28–0.56) were observed for all scores except Self-Regulation, Adult interaction, and Attention. Logistic Regression and Receiver Operating Characteristic analyses conducted for the Summary, ASRS, and two Treatment scales (Peer and Social-Emotional Reciprocity) indicated low ORs (&lt;|1.08|) and AUCs in the poor range (&lt;.67). Total and Unusual Behavior emerged as comparatively stronger scales with covariates (age and IQ); other scales were generally similar with/without control variables. Sensitivity and specificity could not be optimized. The suggested 60 t-cutpoint had fair or good sensitivity (76.23–83.61) for all examined scales except Unusual Behavior (68.03). However, specificity was poor (46.93–54.36), with high false positive rates (45.64%–63.07%). In complex community samples, the ASRS-T<jats:sub>6-18</jats:sub> behaves more like a screener as opposed to a diagnostic measure.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829241234697\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829241234697","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

越来越多的学龄儿童被转介接受自闭症评估,因此有必要研究自闭症诊断问卷对学龄儿童的诊断效用。除了标准化样本外,有关自闭症评分量表的研究很少,尤其是有关教师报告的研究。本研究调查了自闭症谱系评定量表--6-18 岁教师报告(ASRS-T6-18)的标准效度,该量表是由 409 名儿童(自闭症 [AUT] n = 122;非自闭症 [NOT] n = 287;[公式:见正文] 年龄 = 9.91)组成的特征明确的社区样本,使用自闭症诊断观察表-2 进行评估。除自我调节、成人互动和注意力外,所有得分均有显著的平均差异,且效应大小为中小规模(d = 0.28-0.56)。对 "摘要"、"ASRS "和两个治疗量表(同伴互惠和社会情感互惠)进行的逻辑回归和受试者操作特征分析表明,OR 值较低 (<|1.08|),AUC 值在较低范围内 (<.67)。在使用协变量(年龄和智商)时,"总行为 "和 "异常行为 "成为相对较强的量表;而在使用/不使用控制变量时,其他量表的表现基本相似。灵敏度和特异性无法优化。除异常行为(68.03)外,建议的 60 t 切点对所有受检量表的灵敏度(76.23-83.61)都尚可或较好。但是,特异性较差(46.93-54.36),假阳性率较高(45.64%-63.07%)。在复杂的社区样本中,ASRS-T6-18 更像是一个筛查工具,而不是诊断工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Criterion Validity of the Autism Spectrum Rating Scales Teacher Report
There is a need to investigate the diagnostic utility of autism diagnostic questionnaires in school-age children, who are increasingly being referred for autism assessment. Aside from the standardization sample, little research has been conducted on the Autism Spectrum Rating Scales, particularly regarding teacher reports. This study investigated the criterion validity of the Autism Spectrum Rating Scales-Teacher report for ages 6–18 (ASRS-T6-18) in a well-characterized community sample of 409 children (autism [AUT] n = 122; non-autism [NOT] n = 287; [Formula: see text] age = 9.91) evaluated with the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-2, a well-validated autism diagnostic measure. Significant mean differences with small to moderate effect sizes ( d = 0.28–0.56) were observed for all scores except Self-Regulation, Adult interaction, and Attention. Logistic Regression and Receiver Operating Characteristic analyses conducted for the Summary, ASRS, and two Treatment scales (Peer and Social-Emotional Reciprocity) indicated low ORs (<|1.08|) and AUCs in the poor range (<.67). Total and Unusual Behavior emerged as comparatively stronger scales with covariates (age and IQ); other scales were generally similar with/without control variables. Sensitivity and specificity could not be optimized. The suggested 60 t-cutpoint had fair or good sensitivity (76.23–83.61) for all examined scales except Unusual Behavior (68.03). However, specificity was poor (46.93–54.36), with high false positive rates (45.64%–63.07%). In complex community samples, the ASRS-T6-18 behaves more like a screener as opposed to a diagnostic measure.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
61
期刊介绍: The Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment (JPA) publishes contemporary and important information focusing on psychological and educational assessment research and evidence-based practices as well as assessment instrumentation. JPA is well known internationally for the quality of published assessment-related research, theory and practice papers, and book and test reviews. The methodologically sound and impiricially-based studies and critical test and book reviews will be of particular interest to all assessment specialists including practicing psychologists, psychoeducational consultants, educational diagnosticians and special educators.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信