Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Clinical Utility of the ADOS-2 and the ADI-R in Diagnosing Autism Spectrum Disorders in Children

The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, Second Edition (ADOS-2) and the Autism Diagnostic Interview, Revised (ADI-R) have high accuracy as diagnostic instruments in research settings, while evidence of accuracy in clinical settings is less robust. This meta-analysis focused on efficacy of these...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of autism and developmental disorders 2021-11, Vol.51 (11), p.4101-4114
Main Authors: Lebersfeld, Jenna B., Swanson, Marissa, Clesi, Christian D., O’Kelley, Sarah E.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accuracy
Autism
Autistic children
Behavioral Science and Psychology
Child and School Psychology
Child psychiatric services
Children
Clinical Diagnosis
Clinical research
Diagnosis
Diagnostic Tests
Efficacy
Evaluation
Medical diagnosis
Mental health screening
Meta Analysis
Methods
Neurosciences
Observation
Original Paper
Pediatrics
Pervasive Developmental Disorders
Psychology
Public Health
Systematic review
Usability
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, Second Edition (ADOS-2) and the Autism Diagnostic Interview, Revised (ADI-R) have high accuracy as diagnostic instruments in research settings, while evidence of accuracy in clinical settings is less robust. This meta-analysis focused on efficacy of these measures in research versus clinical settings. Articles (n = 22) were analyzed using a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics (HSROC) model. ADOS-2 performance was stronger than the ADI-R. ADOS-2 sensitivity and specificity ranged from .89-.92 and .81-.85, respectively. ADOS-2 accuracy in research compared with clinical settings was mixed. ADI-R sensitivity and specificity were .75 and .82, respectively, with higher specificity in research samples (Research = .85, Clinical = .72). A small number of clinical studies were identified, indicating ongoing need for investigation outside research settings.
ISSN:0162-3257
1573-3432
DOI:10.1007/s10803-020-04839-z