Cited by 478Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchChild Nutrition and Feeding IssuesSchizophrenia research and treatment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 12 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder

Open access
McPartland, James C., Reichow, Brian, Volkmar, Fred R.·2012·Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective This study evaluated the potential impact of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Method The study focused on a sample of 933 participants evaluated during the DSM-IV field trial; 657 carried a clinical diagnosis of an ASD, and 276 were diagnosed with a non-autistic disorder. Sensitivity and specificity for proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria were evaluated using field trial symptom checklists as follows: individual field trial checklist items (e.g., nonverbal communication); checklist items grouped together as described by a single DSM-5 symptom (e.g., nonverbal and verbal communication); individual DSM-5 criterion (e.g., social-communicative impairment); and overall diagnostic criteria. Results When applying proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ASD, 60.6% (95% confidence interval: 57%-64%) of cases with a clinical diagnosis of an ASD met revised DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ASD. Overall specificity was high, with 94.9% (95% confidence interval: 92%-97%) of individuals accurately excluded from the spectrum. Sensitivity varied by diagnostic subgroup (autistic disorder = 0.76; Asperger's disorder = 0.25; pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified = 0.28) and cognitive ability (IQ < 70 = 0.70; IQ ≥ 70 = 0.46). Conclusions Proposed DSM-5 criteria could substantially alter the composition of the autism spectrum. Revised criteria improve specificity but exclude a substantial portion of cognitively able individuals and those with ASDs other than autistic disorder. A more stringent diagnostic rubric holds significant public health ramifications regarding service eligibility and compatibility of historical and future research.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jaac.2012.01.007

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

1 of 12 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 31 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 11
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 28
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 4
37 of 37
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The field trial checklist items chosen by the authors adequately represent the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.

    “we developed an algorithm using individual items from this symptom set to correspond to the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ASD”
    “each author independently selected items from the checklist to correspond to DSM-5 criteria, and all authors met as a group to develop a consensus algorithm”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The DSM-IV field trial sample is representative of the broader population of individuals with ASD and other developmental or psychiatric disorders.

    “This re-analysis focused on 933 cases, omitting individuals diagnosed with non-autistic PDDs (Rett’s Disorder, n=13; Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, n=16), as well as individuals missing data required for the present analyses (n=15).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The clinical diagnosis of ASD in the DSM-IV field trial is a valid reference standard for evaluating the proposed DSM-5 criteria.

    “we contrasted 657 who had been clinically diagnosed with an ASD and a comparison sample of 276 individuals who received a clinical diagnosis not on the autism spectrum.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The algorithm created from the 61 field trial checklist items adequately represents the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.

    “From 61 individual checklist items rated by these field trial evaluators, we created an algorithm analogous to proposed DSM-5 criteria”
4 of 4

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?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 17.7reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “X2(1)= 17.7, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(931) = 0.57reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .569

    “t (931) = .57, p > .05”

  • Consistentχ²(5) = 10reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .075

    “X2(5) = 10.0, p > .05”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 34.9reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “X2(1)= 34.9, p < .001”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 138.3reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “X2(2) = 138.3, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(654) = 0.02reported p = .98 · recomputed p = .984

    “t(654) = 0.02, p = .98”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 0.3reported p = .59 · recomputed p = .584

    “X2(1)= .30, p = .59”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 46.8reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “X2(2) = 46.8, p < .001”

8 of 8

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Sample size is stated as 977 and 933 in different parts of the paper

    Minor

    The abstract/method summary says the study sample was 977 participants, but the detailed Method states the re-analysis focused on 933 cases after exclusions. Both cannot describe the same analyzed sample without clarification.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 35 references

3 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Klin, 2000, Brief report: interrater reliability of clinical diagnosis and DSM-IV criteria for autistic disorder: results of the DSM-IV autism field trial, J Autism Dev Disord, 30, 163, 10.1023/a:1005415823867 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 478

Metadata

Authors
McPartland, J. C., Reichow, B., & Volkmar, F. R.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
McPartland, James C.
Venue
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-04
Volume
51
Issue
4
Pages
368-383
ISSN
0890-8567 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2024803279
Cited by
476
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 72 · 2013: 79 · 2012: 36
FWCI
36.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K23MH086785, P50MH081756)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P50HD003008, P01HD003008)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
autism spectrum disorder, DSM-5 diagnostic criteria, sensitivity and specificity, autistic disorder, Asperger syndrome, pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified, nonverbal communication, cognitive ability, diagnostic criteria revision
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Child Development Disorders, Pervasive, Child, Preschool, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diagnosis, Differential, Disability Evaluation, Eligibility Determination, Humans, Mental Health Services, Sensitivity and Specificity, United States, Incidence, Asperger Syndrome, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Checklist

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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