Autism screening at 18 months of age: a comparison of the Q-CHAT-10 and M-CHAT screeners

Early Language, Social Communication, and Autism Characteristics of Young Toddlers at Elevated Likelihood for Autism Identified by the First Years Inventory-Lite

PURPOSE

The purposes of this article were (a) to compare the developmental skills of toddlers whose scores on the First Years Inventory-Lite (FYI-Lite), an early screening tool, indicated an elevated likelihood of a later diagnosis of autism (ELA) to the developmental skills of toddlers at a lower likelihood of a later diagnosis of autism (LLA) and (b) to examine how autism characteristics are correlated with communication measures in toddlers at an ELA.

METHOD

We assessed the language, social communication (SC) skills, and characteristics of autism demonstrated by 45 toddlers at an ELA and 37 toddlers at an LLA between the ages of 11 and 18 months and compared group scores on these measures. We also examined the correlations between the characteristics of autism and language measures within the ELA group.

RESULTS

Toddlers at an ELA demonstrated lower scores on measures of global expressive and receptive language, receptive vocabulary, gestures, and response to joint attention bids as well as SC characteristics of autism when compared to those demonstrated by toddlers at an LLA. There were no significant differences between groups on expressive vocabulary, language profiles (i.e., the relationship between receptive and expressive scores), or restrictive and repetitive behaviors. Within the ELA group, the SC characteristics of autism were significantly associated with their global receptive and expressive language skills.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the FYI-Lite screening tool, toddlers at an ELA are demonstrating delays in language and SC skills when compared to toddlers identified with an LLA. For toddlers at an ELA, the SC characteristics of autism are significantly associated with early language skills.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.27969444.

[Formula: see text] Caregiver-reported infant motor and imitation skills predict M-CHAT-R/F

Altered motor and social-communicative abilities in infancy have been linked to later ASD diagnosis. Most diagnostic instruments for ASD cannot be utilized until 12 months, and the average child is diagnosed substantially later. Imitation combines motor and social-communicative skills and is commonly atypical in infants at risk for ASD. However, few measures have been developed to assess infant imitation clinically. One barrier to the diagnostic age gap of ASD is accessibility of screening and diagnostic services. Utilization of caregiver report to reliably screen for ASD mitigates such barriers and could aid in earlier detection. The present study developed and validated a caregiver-report measure of infant imitation at 4, 6, and 9 months and explored the relationship between caregiver-reported imitation and motor abilities with later ASD risk. Participants (N = 571) were caregivers of term and preterm infants recruited as part of a large multi-site study of PediaTrac™, a web-based tool for monitoring and tracking infant development. Caregivers completed online surveys and established questionnaires on a schedule corresponding to well-child visits from birth to 18 months, including the M-CHAT-R/F at 18 months. Distinct imitation factors were derived from PediaTrac at 4, 6, and 9 months via factor analysis. The results supported validity of the imitation factors via associations with measures of infant communication (CSBS; ASQ). Imitation and motor skills at 9 months predicted 18-month ASD risk over and above gestational age. Implications for assessment of infant imitation, detecting ASD risk in the first year, and contributing to access to care are discussed.

Screening for Autism Spectrum Disorder in Young Children: Still Not Enough Evidence

BACKGROUND

Early detection of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has the potential to significantly reduce the impact of the condition, however previous reviews have found little evidence to support screening programs for ASD in young children.

METHODS

We conducted a review with the aim of updating evidence on 3 aspects: (a) diagnostic stability of ASD in young children; (b) accuracy of ASD screening tools in young children; and (c) the benefits of early interventions in screen-detected young children with ASD.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies were included in our review. Five studies looking at diagnostic stability reported estimates ranging from 71.9% to 100%, however the majority only included a follow-up of 24 months and all studies raised concerns regarding the risk of bias due particularly to lack of blinding, sample size, and patient flow. A total of 25 studies, reported in 26 articles, were identified that reported accuracy data on 11 screening tools. Most of the reports were concerned with versions of M-CHAT, reporting sensitivity estimates from 0.67 to 1.0; however, many of these were deemed to be of high risk of bias due to lack of blinding and follow-up. Four studies reported on early interventions in screen-detected children; however, the majority did not find significant improvements on the relevant outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the evidence on screening for ASD in young children captured by this review is not conclusive regarding the 3 aspects of screening in this population. Future studies should attempt to ensure blinded diagnostic assessments, include longer follow-up periods and limit attrition.

Sensitivity and Specificity of the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (Original and Revised): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

The Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (M-CHAT) and the M-CHAT, Revised With Follow-up (M-CHAT-R/F)-henceforth referred to as M-CHAT(-R/F)-are the most commonly used toddler screeners for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Their use often differs from that in the original validation studies, resulting in a range of estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Also, given the variability in reports of the clinical utility of the M-CHAT(-R/F), researchers and practitioners lack guidance to inform autism screening protocols.

Objective

To synthesize variability in sensitivity and specificity of M-CHAT(-R/F) across multiple factors, including procedures for identifying missed cases, likelihood level, screening age, and single compared with repeated screenings.

Data Sources

A literature search was conducted with PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify studies published between January 1, 2001, and August 31, 2022.

Study Selection

Articles were included if the studies used the M-CHAT(-R/F) (ie, original or revised version) to identify new ASD cases, were published in English-language peer-reviewed journals, included at least 10 ASD cases, reported procedures for false-negative case identification, screened children by 48 months, and included information (or had information provided by authors when contacted) needed to conduct the meta-analysis.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted within the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool evaluated bias in sample selection. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by 2 authors independently. The overall diagnostic accuracy of the M-CHAT(-R/F) was assessed with the hierarchic summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratios, and HSROC curves of M-CHAT(-R/F).

Results

The review included 50 studies with 51 samples. The pooled sensitivity of M-CHAT(-R/F) was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77-0.88), and the pooled specificity was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.97). Heterogeneity analyses revealed greater diagnostic accuracy for low- vs high-likelihood samples, a concurrent vs prospective case confirmation strategy, a large vs small sample size, use of M-CHAT(-R/F) Follow-up, and non-English vs English only.

Conclusions and Relevance

Overall, results of this study suggest the utility of the M-CHAT(-R/F) as an ASD screener. The wide variability in psychometric properties of M-CHAT(-R/F) highlights differences in screener use that should be considered in research and practice.

Do Autism-Specific and General Developmental Screens Have Complementary Clinical Value?

Prior studies suggest autism-specific and general developmental screens are complementary for identifying both autism and developmental delay (DD). Parents completed autism and developmental screens before 18-month visits. Children with failed screens for autism (n = 167) and age, gender, and practice-matched children passing screens (n = 241) completed diagnostic evaluations for autism and developmental delay. When referral for autism and/or DD was considered, overall false positives from the autism screens were less frequent than for referral for autism alone. Presence of a failed communication subscale in the developmental screen was a red flag for autism and/or DD. An ordinally-scored autism screen had more favorable characteristics when considering autism and/or DD, yet none of the screens achieved recommended standards at 18 months, reinforcing the need for recurrent screening as autism emerges in early development.