How to Use the ADI-R for Classifying Autism Spectrum Disorders? Psychometric Properties of Criteria from the Literature in 1,204 Dutch Children

Features that best define the heterogeneity and homogeneity of autism in preschool-age children: A multisite case-control analysis replicated across two independent samples

The heterogeneous nature of children with symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) makes it difficult to identify risk factors and effective treatment options. We sought to identify behavioral and developmental features that best define the heterogeneity and homogeneity in 2-5-year-old children classified with ASD and subthreshold ASD characteristics. Children were enrolled in a multisite case-control study of ASD. Detailed behavioral and developmental data were gathered by maternal telephone interview, parent-administered questionnaires, child cognitive evaluation, and ASD diagnostic measures. Participants with a positive ASD screen score or prior ASD diagnosis were referred for comprehensive evaluation. Children in the ASD group met study criteria based on this evaluation; children who did not meet study criteria were categorized as having subthreshold ASD characteristics. There were 1480 children classified as ASD (81.6% boys) and 594 children classified as having subthreshold ASD characteristics (70.2% boys) in the sample. Factors associated with dysregulation (e.g., aggression, anxiety/depression, sleep problems) followed by developmental abilities (e.g., expressive and receptive language skills) most contributed to heterogeneity in both groups of children. Atypical sensory response contributed to homogeneity in children classified as ASD but not those with subthreshold characteristics. These findings suggest that dysregulation and developmental abilities are clinical features that can impact functioning in children with ASD and other DD, and that documenting these features in pediatric records may help meet the needs of the individual child. Sensory dysfunction could be considered a core feature of ASD and thus used to inform more targeted screening, evaluation, treatment, and research efforts. LAY SUMMARY: The diverse nature of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) makes it difficult to find risk factors and treatment options. We identified the most dissimilar and most similar symptom(s) in children classified as ASD and as having subthreshold ASD characteristics. Factors associated with dysregulation and developmental abilities contributed to diversity in both groups of children. Sensory dysfunction was the most common symptom in children with ASD but not those with subthreshold characteristics. Findings can inform clinical practice and research.

Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised Within DSM-5 Framework: Test of Reliability and Validity in Chinese Children

This study examines the psychometric properties of the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R) in the context of DSM-5 in a sample of Chinese children. Using re-mapped ADI-R items and algorithms matched to DSM-5 criteria, and administering to children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) with and without intellectual disability, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and typically developing, it evidenced high sensitivity and specificity. However, similar to DSM-IV algorithm, the DSM-5 algorithms were better at classifying ASD among children with intellectual disability than among those without intellectual disability. With the DSM-5's recognition of the spectrum nature of ASD, the performance of the ADI-R can be improved by having finer gradations in the ADI-R scoring and adding more items on the restricted and repetitve behavior domain.

Validating the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised in the Korean Population

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the validity of the Korean version of the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (K-ADI-R) and determine its efficacy in identifying individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

METHODS

Data were pooled from several past and ongoing studies as well as clinical records acquired at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital from 2008 to 2017. The K-ADI-R were administered and scored by trained research reliable examiners. Measurements to investigate the validity of the K-ADI-R was through sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV), and Cohen's kappa.

RESULTS

A total of 1,271 (age 88.9±62.42 months, male=927) participants were included. The K-ADI-R yielded strong psychometric properties with high sensitivity (86.06-99.27%), specificity (84.75-99.55%), PPV (92.33-99.72%), and NPV (79.43-98.64%). There were significant differences in item scores across the K-ADI-R diagnostic algorithm regardless of age and sex (p<0.001). Agreement between the K-ADI-R and other ASD related measurements ranged between levels of good to excellent.

CONCLUSION

Despite language or cultural boundaries, the K-ADI-R demonstrated high levels of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV within a wide range of participants; hence, suggesting promising usage as a valuable diagnostic instrument for individuals with ASD.

An Exploratory Study of Executive Function Development in Children with Autism, after Receiving Early Intensive Behavioral Training

Objective: To examine the development of executive functions, in preschool children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), receiving early intensive behavioral training (EIBI). Method: Executive functions (EF) were assessed with The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function - Preschool Version (BRIEF-P), by parents and preschool teachers at the time of diagnostic assessment and after 15 months of EIBI intervention. Ten children with ASD (M = 2.9 years, nine males) participated in the study. Reliable Change Index scores were computed for each of the participants in order to investigate any significant change in BRIEF-P T-scores. Results: Three children showed a significant improvement in EF, based on parent ratings. Four children showed a significant improvement in EF based on preschool teacher ratings. Conclusion: Findings indicating a reliable improvement in one third of preschool children with ASD receiving EIBI are encouraging but need to be replicated in larger scale controlled studies.

[ADI-R and ADOS and the differential diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders: Interests, limits and openings]

INTRODUCTION

Current developments in international public health are leading qualified authorities to release clinical practice guidelines for Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) assessment and diagnosis. Such documents incorporate procedures that rely on the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R) and the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) which are considered to be the "gold standard" assessment measures in the evaluation of ASD. Although these tools do prove their effectiveness in the evaluation of autistic symptomatology, they nevertheless stumble whenever the situation becomes more complex and reveal differential diagnostic issues in infantile and adult autism cases. This differential diagnostic issue remains significant in the clinical practice of daily life and has strong implications for the course of therapeutic treatment.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective is to underline and nuance the metrological qualities of the ADI-R and the ADOS in the differential diagnosis of autistic disorders by presenting a synthesis of recent studies, thus supporting the interest of maintaining an open debate on diagnostic practices.

METHODS

Our selective review of the recent literature focuses on studies that confront the ADI-R and the ADOS - used either independently or in a combination - with various differential issues in adulthood and childhood autism in order to highlight their qualities and limits.

RESULTS

The ADI-R is a semi-structured interview applied by trained examiners and applied to relatives and/or caregivers who collect developmental information about the patient's first years of life on a variety of behaviors and skills. It is therefore relatively dependent on the availability and personal bias of the interviewed third parties. Metric features highlighted by the reviewed studies straightforwardly reveal a certain effectiveness of the tool and a good discrimination of childhood disorders. At the same time, the tool's discriminatory capacity seems insufficient when applied to toddlers, very young children, and adults alike. The latter seems particularly true when it comes to differentiating between autistic and schizophrenic spectrum disorders. The ADOS is a semi-structured standardized observation assessment tool that has experienced several successive developments, such as optimizations concerning the sensitivity of its cutoffs. Many works have contributed to building such a tool with reliable and solid metric qualities which nevertheless retain important biases such as the subjectivity of the caregiver or the evaluator during the scoring process. For assessments of autistic children the tool still has a good diagnostic validity but seems to retain cases of incorrect diagnosis of ASD (false positives). In other words, disorders or developmental disabilities of some children and adolescents could not be distinguished from ASD when relying on this test alone. The ADOS Module 4, designed for the diagnosis of adolescents and adults with fluent speech, has undergone less updating. This revisited algorithm has metrological qualities useful for clinicians and remains one of the few available tools for this population. Unfortunately, its diagnostic accuracy is lower when applied to women, the elderly, people with personality disorders or higher intellectual abilities, or for the discrimination between ASD and schizophrenia. Overall, scores from these two instruments bring strong evidence of their usefulness in the diagnostic process of ASD, provided that they are used with caution and a critical clinical perspective, and only as a secondary technical support. Their use in combination is effective since they are complementary and compensate for each other's limitations. However, their globalized hegemony as "gold-standard" tools constitutes a setback insofar as it constrains the diagnosis of ASD to a set of stereotyped items. The latter in turn sets a normative model of autism that excludes other phenotypic forms, especially in the case of women and the elderly. Finally, the discrimination between autism and psychosis for children seems to remain an insoluble task even for the ADI-R/ADOS combination.

CONCLUSIONS

The problematics of differential diagnosis remain critical for clinical approaches to autism. Therefore, formalizations of the diagnostic procedures must be able to remain open-minded and accompanied by a creative clinical approach, especially in the case of complex situations that are not soluble by means of conventional diagnostic tools. One possibility may lie in the deepening of the phenomenological approach to autism as an attempt to model the subjective phenomena of autistic subjects and thus operationalize elements that serve the diagnostic process. In the same way, a psychodynamic epistemology could help clinicians to go beyond the consideration of observable behaviors and scores, introducing a psychoanalytic point of view that interfaces objective behaviors with the individual's dynamic intrapsychic functioning. This project could be articulated with projective methodologies - notably the Rorschach test - which respects the needs for standardization and quantification of conventionally used diagnostic tools.

Cross-Cultural Validation of the Polish Version of the ADI-R, Including New Algorithms for Toddlers and Young Preschoolers

Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R) is one of the most widely used standardized diagnostic instruments for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This article presents findings from the validation of the Polish version of the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R-PL), including new algorithms for toddlers and preschoolers. The validation group consisted of 125 participants: 65 with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD group) and 60 in the control group, including individuals with non-ASD disorders and typical development. The normalization group consisted of 178 participants, including 118 with ASD. The ADI-R-PL was found to have good psychometric properties. Confirmatory factor analysis supported both a bifactor structure and three-factor model. The study has generated preliminary information about the psychometric properties of the new algorithms for toddlers and young preschoolers. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first to propose new cutoffs in three ADI-R domains for a non-English-speaking population.

Diagnostic tests for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in preschool children

BACKGROUND

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a behaviourally diagnosed condition. It is defined by impairments in social communication or the presence of restricted or repetitive behaviours, or both. Diagnosis is made according to existing classification systems. In recent years, especially following publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition (DSM-5; APA 2013), children are given the diagnosis of ASD, rather than subclassifications of the spectrum such as autistic disorder, Asperger syndrome, or pervasive developmental disorder - not otherwise specified. Tests to diagnose ASD have been developed using parent or carer interview, child observation, or a combination of both.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objectives1. To identify which diagnostic tools, including updated versions, most accurately diagnose ASD in preschool children when compared with multi-disciplinary team clinical judgement.2. To identify how the best of the interview tools compare with CARS, then how CARS compares with ADOS.a. Which ASD diagnostic tool - among ADOS, ADI-R, CARS, DISCO, GARS, and 3di - has the best diagnostic test accuracy?b. Is the diagnostic test accuracy of any one test sufficient for that test to be suitable as a sole assessment tool for preschool children?c. Is there any combination of tests that, if offered in sequence, would provide suitable diagnostic test accuracy and enhance test efficiency?d. If data are available, does the combination of an interview tool with a structured observation test have better diagnostic test accuracy (i.e. fewer false-positives and fewer false-negatives) than either test alone?As only one interview tool was identified, we modified the first three aims to a single aim (Differences between protocol and review): This Review evaluated diagnostic tests in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Specificity is the most important factor for diagnosis; however, both sensitivity and specificity are of interest in this Review because there is an inherent trade-off between these two factors.Secondary objectives1. To determine whether any diagnostic test has greater diagnostic test accuracy for age-specific subgroups within the preschool age range.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2016, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 10 other databases, and the reference lists of all included publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Publications had to: 1. report diagnostic test accuracy for any of the following six included diagnostic tools: Autism Diagnostic Interview - Revised (ADI-R), Gilliam Autism Rating Scale (GARS), Diagnostic Interview for Social and Communication Disorder (DISCO), Developmental, Dimensional, and Diagnostic Interview (3di), Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule - Generic (ADOS), and Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS); 2. include children of preschool age (under six years of age) suspected of having an ASD; and 3. have a multi-disciplinary assessment, or similar, as the reference standard.Eligible studies included cohort, cross-sectional, randomised test accuracy, and case-control studies. The target condition was ASD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed all studies for inclusion and extracted data using standardised forms. A third review author settled disagreements. We assessed methodological quality using the QUADAS-2 instrument (Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy - Revised). We conducted separate univariate random-effects logistical regressions for sensitivity and specificity for CARS and ADI-R. We conducted meta-analyses of pairs of sensitivity and specificity using bivariate random-effects methods for ADOS.

MAIN RESULTS

In this Review, we included 21 sets of analyses reporting different tools or cohorts of children from 13 publications, many with high risk of bias or potential conflicts of interest or a combination of both. Overall, the prevalence of ASD for children in the included analyses was 74%.For versions and modules of ADOS, there were 12 analyses with 1625 children. Sensitivity of ADOS ranged from 0.76 to 0.98, and specificity ranged from 0.20 to 1.00. The summary sensitivity was 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 0.97), and the summary specificity was 0.80 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.88).For CARS, there were four analyses with 641 children. Sensitivity of CARS ranged from 0.66 to 0.89, and specificity ranged from 0.21 to 1.00. The summary sensitivity for CARS was 0.80 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.91), and the summary specificity was 0.88 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.96).For ADI-R, there were five analyses with 634 children. Sensitivity for ADI-R ranged from 0.19 to 0.75, and specificity ranged from 0.63 to 1.00. The summary sensitivity for the ADI-R was 0.52 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.71), and the summary specificity was 0.84 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.95).Studies that compared tests were few and too small to allow clear conclusions.In two studies that included analyses for both ADI-R and ADOS, tests scored similarly for sensitivity, but ADOS scored higher for specificity. In two studies that included analyses for ADI-R, ADOS, and CARS, ADOS had the highest sensitivity and CARS the highest specificity.In one study that explored individual and additive sensitivity and specificity of ADOS and ADI-R, combining the two tests did not increase the sensitivity nor the specificity of ADOS used alone.Performance for all tests was lower when we excluded studies at high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We observed substantial variation in sensitivity and specificity of all tests, which was likely attributable to methodological differences and variations in the clinical characteristics of populations recruited.When we compared summary statistics for ADOS, CARS, and ADI-R, we found that ADOS was most sensitive. All tools performed similarly for specificity. In lower prevalence populations, the risk of falsely identifying children who do not have ASD would be higher.Now available are new versions of tools that require diagnostic test accuracy assessment, ideally in clinically relevant situations, with methods at low risk of bias and in children of varying abilities.

Does the cognitive architecture of simplex and multiplex ASD families differ?

Children with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and their unaffected siblings from 54 simplex (SPX, one individual in the family affected) and 59 multiplex (MPX, two or more individuals affected) families, and 124 controls were assessed on intelligence, social cognition and executive functions. SPX and MPX ASD probands displayed similar cognitive profiles, but within-family contrasts were highest in SPX families, suggesting SPX-MPX stratification may help parse etiological heterogeneity of ASD. Unaffected siblings (regardless SPX or MPX) were mostly unimpaired, suggesting that cognitive problems may be part of the defining features of ASD, rather than being an endophenotypic trait. Except for affective prosody, which appeared to be the most sensitive cognitive marker for detecting familial risk for ASD.

Using standardized diagnostic instruments to classify children with autism in the study to explore early development

The Study to Explore Early Development (SEED) is a multi-site case-control study designed to explore the relationship between autism spectrum disorder (ASD) phenotypes and etiologies. The goals of this paper are to (1) describe the SEED algorithm that uses the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R) and Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) to classify children with ASD, (2) examine psychometric properties of different ASD classification methods, including the SEED method that incorporates rules for resolving ADI-R and ADOS discordance, and (3) determine whether restricted interests and repetitive behaviors were noted for children who had instrument discordance resolved using ADI-R social and communication scores. Results support the utility of SEED criteria when well-defined groups of children are an important clinical or research outcome.

Systematic review of tools to measure outcomes for young children with autism spectrum disorder

BACKGROUND

The needs of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are complex and this is reflected in the number and diversity of outcomes assessed and measurement tools used to collect evidence about children's progress. Relevant outcomes include improvement in core ASD impairments, such as communication, social awareness, sensory sensitivities and repetitiveness; skills such as social functioning and play; participation outcomes such as social inclusion; and parent and family impact.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the measurement properties of tools used to measure progress and outcomes in children with ASD up to the age of 6 years. To identify outcome areas regarded as important by people with ASD and parents.

METHODS

The MeASURe (Measurement in Autism Spectrum disorder Under Review) research collaboration included ASD experts and review methodologists. We undertook systematic review of tools used in ASD early intervention and observational studies from 1992 to 2013; systematic review, using the COSMIN checklist (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) of papers addressing the measurement properties of identified tools in children with ASD; and synthesis of evidence and gaps. The review design and process was informed throughout by consultation with stakeholders including parents, young people with ASD, clinicians and researchers.

RESULTS

The conceptual framework developed for the review was drawn from the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, including the domains 'Impairments', 'Activity Level Indicators', 'Participation', and 'Family Measures'. In review 1, 10,154 papers were sifted - 3091 by full text - and data extracted from 184; in total, 131 tools were identified, excluding observational coding, study-specific measures and those not in English. In review 2, 2665 papers were sifted and data concerning measurement properties of 57 (43%) tools were extracted from 128 papers. Evidence for the measurement properties of the reviewed tools was combined with information about their accessibility and presentation. Twelve tools were identified as having the strongest supporting evidence, the majority measuring autism characteristics and problem behaviour. The patchy evidence and limited scope of outcomes measured mean these tools do not constitute a 'recommended battery' for use. In particular, there is little evidence that the identified tools would be good at detecting change in intervention studies. The obvious gaps in available outcome measurement include well-being and participation outcomes for children, and family quality-of-life outcomes, domains particularly valued by our informants (young people with ASD and parents).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic review of the quality and appropriateness of tools designed to monitor progress and outcomes of young children with ASD. Although it was not possible to recommend fully robust tools at this stage, the review consolidates what is known about the field and will act as a benchmark for future developments. With input from parents and other stakeholders, recommendations are made about priority targets for research.

FUTURE WORK

Priorities include development of a tool to measure child quality of life in ASD, and validation of a potential primary outcome tool for trials of early social communication intervention.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002223.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Investigating the cross-cultural validity of DSM-5 autism spectrum disorder: Evidence from Finnish and UK samples

The recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fifth Edition ( DSM-5) reformulation of autism spectrum disorder has received empirical support from North American and UK samples. Autism spectrum disorder is an increasingly global diagnosis, and research is needed to discover how well it generalises beyond North America and the United Kingdom. We tested the applicability of the DSM-5 model to a sample of Finnish young people with autism spectrum disorder (n = 130) or the broader autism phenotype (n = 110). Confirmatory factor analysis tested the DSM-5 model in Finland and compared the fit of this model between Finnish and UK participants (autism spectrum disorder, n = 488; broader autism phenotype, n = 220). In both countries, autistic symptoms were measured using the Developmental, Diagnostic and Dimensional Interview. Replicating findings from English-speaking samples, the DSM-5 model fitted well in Finnish autism spectrum disorder participants, outperforming a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fourth Edition ( DSM-IV) model. The DSM-5 model fitted equally well in Finnish and UK autism spectrum disorder samples. Among broader autism phenotype participants, this model fitted well in the United Kingdom but poorly in Finland, suggesting that cross-cultural variability may be greatest for milder autistic characteristics. We encourage researchers with data from other cultures to emulate our methodological approach, to map any cultural variability in the manifestation of autism spectrum disorder and the broader autism phenotype. This would be especially valuable given the ongoing revision of the International Classification of Diseases–11th Edition, the most global of the diagnostic manuals.