Cited by 253Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchChild Nutrition and Feeding IssuesLanguage Development and Disorders

A Prospective Study of Response to Name in Infants at Risk for Autism

Nadig, Aparna S., Ozonoff, Sally, Young, Gregory S., Rozga, Agata, Sigman, Marian, Rogers, Sally J.·2007·Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the sensitivity and specificity of decreased response to name at age 12 months as a screen for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and other developmental delays. DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal design studying infants at risk for ASD. SETTING: Research laboratory at university medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Infants at risk for autism (55 six-month-olds, 101 twelve-month-olds) and a control group at no known risk (43 six-month-olds, 46 twelve-month-olds). To date, 46 at-risk infants and 25 control infants have been followed up to 24 months. Intervention Experimental task eliciting response-to-name behavior. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, Mullen Scales of Early Learning. RESULTS: At age 6 months, there was a nonsignificant trend for control infants to require a fewer number of calls to respond to name than infants at risk for autism. At age 12 months, 100% of infants in the control group "passed," responding on the first or second name call, while 86% in the at-risk group did. Three fourths of children who failed the task were identified with developmental problems at age 24 months. Specificity of failing to respond to name was 0.89 for ASD and 0.94 for any developmental delay. Sensitivity was 0.50 for ASD and 0.39 for any developmental delay. CONCLUSIONS: Failure to respond to name by age 12 months is highly suggestive of developmental abnormality but does not identify all children at risk for developmental problems. Lack of responding to name is not universal among infants later diagnosed with ASD and/or other developmental delays. Poor response to name may be a trait of the broader autism phenotype in infancy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archpedi.161.4.378

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nadig, A. S., Ozonoff, S., Young, G. S., Rozga, A., Sigman, M., & Rogers, S. J.
Affiliations
  • University of California Davis Medical Center (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Venue
Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine
Published
2007-04-01
Volume
161
Issue
4
Pages
378
ISSN
1072-4710 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2144523966
Cited by
253
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 22
FWCI
7.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of California, Los Angeles
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH068398, MH068398)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
autism spectrum disorder, developmental delay screening, autism screening, sensitivity and specificity, high-risk infants, broader autism phenotype
MeSH terms
Autistic Disorder, Developmental Disabilities, Child, Preschool, Humans, Infant, Longitudinal Studies, Prospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review