All Sources In Your Research Paper Should Be Evaluated For Autism

1. Plauché Johnson C, Myers SM Council on Children with Disabilities. Identification and evaluation of children with autism spectrum disorders. [Accessed July 25, 2007.];Pediatrics. http://www.aap.org/pressroom/AutismID.pdf. Published October 29, 2007. [PubMed]

2. Filipek P, Accardo P, Ashwal S, et al. Practice parameter: Screening and diagnosis of autism: Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the Child Neurology Society. Neurology. 2000;55(4):468–479.[PubMed]

3. Jarquin VG, Wiggins LD, Schieve LA, et al. Racial disparities in community identification of autism spectrum disorders over time; Metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, 2000–2006. J of Dev Behav Pediatr. 2011;32(3):179–187.[PubMed]

4. Yeargin-Allsop M, Rice C, Karapurkar T, et al. Prevalence of autism in a US metropolitan area. JAMA. 2003;289(1):49–55.[PubMed]

5. Braiden HJ, Bothwell J, Duffy J. Parents’ Experience of the Diagnostic Process for Autistic Spectrum Disorders. Child Care in Practice. 2010;16(4):377–389.

6. CDC. Surveillance Summaries. SS-1. Vol. 56. MMWR; Feb 9, Prevalence of autism spectrum disorders—Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 14 sites, United States, 2002; pp. 12–28. [PubMed]

7. Sullivan M, Finelli J, Marvin A, et al. Response to joint attention in toddlers at risk for autism spectrum disorder: a prospective study. J Autism Dev Disord. 2007;37(1):37–48.[PubMed]

8. Chawarska K, Klin A, Paul R, Volkmar F. Autism spectrum disorder in the second year: Stability and change in syndrome expression. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2007;48(2):128–138.[PubMed]

9. Richler J, Bishop SL, Kleinke JR, Lord C. Restricted and repetitive behaviors in young children autism spectrum disorders. J Autism Dev Disord. 2007;37(1):73–85.[PubMed]

10. Bishop SL, Richler J, Lord C. Association between restricted and repetitive behaviors and nonverbal IQ in children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) Child Neuropsych. 2006;12(4–5):247–67.[PubMed]

11. Sigman M, McGovern CW. Improvement in cognitive and language skills from preschool to adolescence in autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 2005;35(1):15–23.[PubMed]

12. Kim SK, Lord C. New Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised algorithms for toddlers and preschoolers from 12 to 47 months of age. [published online ahead of print] J Autism Dev Disor. 2011

13. National Research Council Committee on Educational Interventions for Children with Autism. Committee on Early Intervention for Children with Autism. Goals for Children with Autism and their Families. In: Lord C, McGee J, editors. Educating children with autism spectrum disorders: Report of the Committee on Early Intervention in Autism. Washington, D.C: National Academy of Sciences; 2001. pp. 21–44.

14. Lord C, Bishop SL. Society for Research in Child Development Public Policy Report. 2010. Autism spectrum disorders: Diagnosis, prevalence and services for children and families.

15. Risi S, Lord C, Gotham K, et al. Combining information from multiple sources in the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2006;45(9):1094–1103.[PubMed]

16. Charman T, Taylor E, Drew A, et al. Outcome at 7 years of children diagnosed with autism at age 2: Predictive validity of assessments conducted at 2 and 3 years of age and pattern of symptom change over time. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005;46(5):500–13.[PubMed]

17. Lord CL, Risi S, DiLavore PS, et al. Autism from 2 to 9 years of age. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63(6):694–701.[PubMed]

18. Lord C, Rutter M, DiLavore PC, Risi S. Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services; 1999.

19. Gotham K, Risi S, Pickles A, Lord C. The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS): Revised algorithms for improved diagnostic validity. J Autism Dev Disord. 2007;37(4):613–627.[PubMed]

20. Luyster R, Gotham K, Guthrie W, et al. The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule- Toddler Module: A new module of a standardized diagnostic measure for autism spectrum disorders. J Autism Dev Disord. 2008;39:1305–1320.[PMC free article][PubMed]

21. Stone WL, Coonrod EE, Ousley OY. Brief report: screening tool for autism in two-year-olds (STAT): development and preliminary data. J Autism Dev Disord. 2000;30(6):607–12.[PubMed]

22. Wetherby A, Allen L, Cleary J, et al. Validity and reliability of the Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Developmental Profile with very young children. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002;45(6):1202–18.[PubMed]

23. Lord C, Risi S, Lambrecht L, Cook E, et al. The ADOS-G (Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Generic): A standard measure of social and communication deficits associated with autism spectrum disorder. J Autism Dev Disord. 2000;30(3):205–223.[PubMed]

24. Kim SH, Lord C. Restricted and repetitive behaviors in toddlers and preschoolers with autism spectrum disorders based on the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) Autism Research. 2010;3(4):162–173.[PMC free article][PubMed]

25. Rutter M, Bailey A, Berument SK, et al. Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ) Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. book; 2003.

26. Corsello C, Hus V, Pickles A, et al. Between a ROC and a Hard Place: Decision making and making decisions about using the SCQ. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2007;48(9):932–40.[PubMed]

27. Overton T, Fielding C, Garcia de Alba R. Differential diagnosis of Hispanic children referred for autism spectrum disorders: complex issues. J Autism Dev Disord. 2007;37(10):1996–2007.[PubMed]

28. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4. Washington, DC: Author; 1994.

29. Thurm A, Lord C, Lee LC, Newschaffer C. Predictors of language acquisition in preschool children with autism spectrum disorders. J Autism Dev Disord. 2007;37(9):1721–31.[PubMed]

30. Anderson DK, Oti R, Lord C, Welch K. Patterns of growth in adaptive social abilities among children with autism spectrum disorder. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2009;37(7):1019–1034.[PMC free article][PubMed]

31. Turner M. Annotation: Repetitive behaviour in autism: A review of psychological research. J Child Psychol Psychiatr. 1999;40(6):839–49.[PubMed]

32. Midence K, O’Neill M. The Experience of parents in the Diagnosis of Autism: A Pilot Study. Autism. 1999;3(3):273–85.

33. Whitaker P. Supporting families of preschool children with autism: what parents want and what helps. Autism. 2002;6(4):411–426.[PubMed]

Response and completion rates

Two-hundred and forty-five potential participants opened the survey, with 173 of these individuals proceeding beyond the first question. Complete responses were obtained for 99 of the respondents who started the questionnaire, resulting in a completion rate of 58%.

Diagnostic processes

Wait-list periods: The wait-list period for an ASD assessment was significantly longer in public/NGO relative to private settings (see table 2). While most of the private diagnostic services (n=52, 88%) start ASD assessments within 3 months of referral, wait times in the public sector were variable, with only 23 of the 50 respondents (46%) reporting wait-list times of 3 months or less (see figure 1). The wait for an MDT assessment (median=12 weeks, SD=25.75, range=1.5–108 weeks) was also longer than for a sole practitioner (median=4 weeks, SD=9.84, range=1–52), Mann–Whitney U=511, p=0.005, perhaps due to the higher number of MDTs in the public sector relative to the private sector.

Figure 1

Total number of public and private services which have wait-list periods of <3 months to more than 12 months.

Assessment sessions and length: Respondents (n=106) completed a median of 2 (range=1–6.5) sessions for ASD assessments with a median assessment length of 90 min (SD=98.15 min, range 30–600 min). There was no difference in the number of assessment sessions completed in the private relative to the public sector (see table 2). However, assessment sessions in the public sector were significantly longer than those in the private sector.

Multidisciplinary assessment: MDTs (n=52) most commonly consisted of one medical and two allied health professionals, usually a psychologist and a speech pathologist. All of the participating occupational therapists were part of an MDT. Most MDTs conducted assessments either in series, together, partially together or in collaboration, that is, each clinician completes an independent assessment, but all assessors meet to make a consensus diagnostic decision (see figure 2). In contrast, sole practitioners (n=49) tended to complete assessments in isolation or in series, that is, assess an individual independently one after the other. Only small numbers of the sole practitioners reported collaborating with other clinicians, with 1 of the 15 (7%) sole practitioners working in isolation and 4 of those working in series (17%) collaborating with external agencies.

Figure 2

Proportion of sole practitioners and MDTs who conduct ASD assessments in isolation, together, partially together, in series or in collaboration with professionals from another discipline. ASD, autism spectrum disorder; MDT, multidisciplinary team.

Multisetting assessment: The majority of the 108 respondents (95%) observed the individual in the clinic in all assessments (median frequency=100% of assessments, SD=31%, range=0–100%). Assessments in the home or school/daycare settings were less frequent, with 47% of respondents including home observations (median frequency=0% of assessments, SD=22%, range=0–100%) and 77% of respondents including observations in the school or daycare (median frequency=20% of assessments, SD=31%, range=0–100%). Only two clinicians (2%), both from the public sector, include clinic and school/daycare observations in more than 75% of the assessments, with 12 clinicians (11%), 4 private practitioners and 8 from the public sector, completing observations in the clinic and home settings. Three respondents (3%), 2 from the private sector and one from the public sector, observed a child in the home and school/daycare settings in more than 75% of the assessments.

Table 2

Median (SD) and range for the wait-list period, number of assessment sessions and length of assessment sessions for diagnosticians in the private and public sectors

Diagnostic practices

Hearing test: In the Australian clinical pathway, it would be expected that the paediatrician conducts a hearing assessment before referring a child to an allied health team for an ASD assessment.7 Of the paediatricians (n=20) surveyed, only 2 (10%) reported that a hearing test is included in all ASD assessments. Another 2 paediatricians (10%) indicated that they rarely include a hearing test in ASD assessments, 5 reported occasionally or usually (ie, in 30–50% of assessments) and 11 paediatricians (55%) reported to include a hearing test frequently or usually (ie, 70–90% of assessments) where ASD is suspected.

Medical investigations: All of the paediatricians who include medical investigations in ASD assessments reported completing a genetic screen, Fragile X test and neurological and physical examinations. Of the 21 paediatricians, 15 respondents (71%), reported that they include medical investigations frequently or usually (more than 70% of their assessments), with only 4 pediatricians (19%) including medical investigations in all assessments where ASD is suspected.

Assessment measures: A total of 107 participants responded to questions regarding the administration of assessment tools. A developmental history was reported to have been undertaken by 89% of these respondents. Of these, 66 (62%) reported always administering standardised assessments in diagnostic evaluations for ASD, and 21 (20%) reported doing so frequently or usually (in 70–90% of ASD assessments). There was no difference in the proportion of respondents who frequently administer assessments in private (n=51, 88%) relative to public (n=36, 77%) service settings, χ2 (1, N=87)=2.35, p=0.13, Φ=0.15, nor were there differences in the proportion of respondents who administer assessments by state, χ2 (5, N=105)=2.95, p=0.71, Φ=.17.

Participants who reported administering assessments (n=105) were asked to indicate which types of assessments are included in diagnostic evaluations for ASD. Since some measures are restricted to particular disciplines, it was unsurprising that there was variability in the proportions of clinicians administering cognitive, language and adaptive assessments and measures of ASD symptomatology (see table 3). In addition, only 50 respondents (47%) administer the ADOS and 41 (39%) the ADI-R. Thirty-two respondents (30%) use the ADOS and the ADI-R together in diagnostic evaluations for ASD.

Of the 105 respondents who indicated that they administer assessments as part of diagnostic evaluations for ASD, only 8 (8%) reported that they complete an assessment battery comprising measures of developmental, cognitive, language, adaptive skills and ASD symptomatology. The numbers increased only marginally when we examined developmental and cognitive assessments separately, with 11 respondents (10%) completing a developmental assessment in addition to measures of language, adaptive skills and ASD symptoms, and 14 (13%) completing a cognitive assessment in addition to these other measures. Taking the profession-specific assessments separately showed that 27 psychologists (53%) administered cognitive and adaptive assessments in addition to measures of ASD symptomatology, and 14 speech pathologists (56%) administered language assessments in addition to measures of ASD symptomatology.

To account for clinicians who may review the results of assessments that are administered by other disciplines, we also asked participants to indicate whether they review assessment results. Sixty-seven (68%) respondents reported that they review assessment results. There were no differences in the proportion of respondents from each profession, χ2 (4, N=98)=6.29, p=0.18, Φ=0.18, or state; χ2 (5, N=98)=2.31, p=0.80, Φ=0.15 who review the results of assessments. Finally, we investigated whether respondents who do not regularly administer assessments (ie, in <30% of assessments), review assessment results instead. Six of the 17 respondents (35%) who do not regularly administer assessments always review assessment results. A further 3 respondents (18%) who do not regularly administer standardised assessments often review these results of assessments that have been administered in other settings.

Two respondents, both sole practitioners, reported that they do not administer standardised assessments in diagnostic evaluations for ASD. These respondents reported that they do not administer standardised measures because they are not part of everyday practice, or because they have already been administered at another service. In addition, one respondent reported that the standardised measures are not required because diagnostic decision-making is outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Fifth Edition.

Assessment of co-occurring neurodevelopmental or mental health conditions: Only 23 of the 105 respondents (22%) who administer standardised assessments include additional measures of behaviour or psychopathology. The majority of these clinicians were psychologists (see table 3).

Facing uncertainty in diagnosis: Forty-seven of the 97 (48%) participants who responded to this question reported that they make provisional ASD diagnoses when faced with diagnostic uncertainty. There was no difference in the proportion of provisional diagnoses between the private and public settings, χ2 (1, N=97)=2.53, p=0.11, Φ=0.16, or across the states, χ2 (7, N=97)=12.8, p=0.08, Φ=0.36. Of the respondents who make provisional diagnoses, 34 (72%) reported that this label is rarely used, with the remaining 5 (11%) and 2 (4%) reporting that provisional diagnoses are given occasionally and sometimes respectively. Provisional diagnoses were reportedly given when individuals demonstrated subthreshold symptoms, were very young or would benefit from intervention. Thirty-nine respondents (83%) reported that they reassess individuals with provisional diagnoses within a mean of 13 months (SD=7.96 months).

From 94 respondents, 16 (17%) reported that they have diagnosed ASD when the person did not meet full criteria for the condition. Fifteen of these respondents (88%) reported that this has rarely occurred (<10% of their assessments), with the remaining respondents indicating that it has been occasional (about 30% of assessments). While there was no significant difference in the proportion of overdiagnosis coming from each state, χ2 (7, N=94)=2.41, p=0.79, Φ=0.16, a significantly higher proportion of respondents who made a diagnosis when the individual did not meet criteria came from the private (81%) relative to the public (19%) sector, χ2 (1, N=94)=4.50, p=0.035, Φ=0.22. When asked about the reasons for making the ASD diagnosis, 14 (88%) clinicians reported that they thought that the individual did have ASD, but that the assessment did not reveal the individual's actual diagnostic status. Other commonly reported reasons for the diagnosis were to ensure that the child could access early intervention (n=6), school support (n=5) or disability services (n=3).

Table 3

Proportion of respondents (N=105) from each discipline who administer developmental, cognitive, language, adaptive, ASD or psychometric assessments

0 comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *