The discriminative ability and diagnostic utility of the ADOS-G, ADI-R, and GARS for children in a clinical setting

Recent years have seen a surge of interest in assessment instruments for diagnosing autism in children. Instruments have generally been developed and evaluated from a research perspective. The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Generic (ADOS-G), Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R), and G...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Autism : the international journal of research and practice 2006-11, Vol.10 (6), p.533-549
Main Authors: Mazefsky, Carla A., Oswald, Donald P.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Algorithms
Autism
Autistic Disorder - diagnosis
Autistic Disorder - epidemiology
Autistic Disorder - therapy
Biological and medical sciences
Biomedical Research - methods
Caregivers
Child
Child clinical studies
Child, Preschool
Clinical Diagnosis
Clinical trials
Comparative Analysis
Developmental disorders
Diagnostic Tests
Disability Identification
Evaluation
Female
Humans
Infantile autism
Interviews as Topic
Male
Measures (Individuals)
Medical sciences
Observer Variation
Play and Playthings
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
Reproducibility of Results
Surveys and Questionnaires
Young Children
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:Recent years have seen a surge of interest in assessment instruments for diagnosing autism in children. Instruments have generally been developed and evaluated from a research perspective. The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Generic (ADOS-G), Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R), and Gilliam Autism Rating Scale (GARS) have received considerable attention and are widely used. The objective of this study was to explore the diagnostic utility and discriminative ability of these tools using a clinical population of children referred to a specialty diagnostic clinic over a 3 year time span. The results indicated that the ADOS-G and ADI-R led to approximately 75 percent agreement with team diagnoses, with most inconsistencies being false positive diagnoses based on the measures. The GARS was generally ineffective at discriminating between children with various team diagnoses and consistently underestimated the likelihood of autism. The findings have important implications for the use of these measures in both research and clinical practice.
ISSN:1362-3613
1461-7005
DOI:10.1177/1362361306068505