Cited by 376Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchChild Nutrition and Feeding IssuesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Replication of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) Revised Algorithms

Open access

Abstract

Objective To replicate the factor structure and predictive validity of revised Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule algorithms in an independent dataset (N = 1,282). Method Algorithm revisions were replicated using data from children ages 18 months to 16 years collected at 11 North American sites participating in the Collaborative Programs for Excellence in Autism and the Studies to Advance Autism Research and Treatment. Results Sensitivities and specificities approximated or exceeded those of the old algorithms except for young children with phrase speech and a clinical diagnosis of pervasive developmental disorders not otherwise specified. Conclusions Revised algorithms increase comparability between modules and improve the predictive validity of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule for autism cases compared to the original algorithms.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/chi.0b013e31816bffb7

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 21 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–376 of 376

Metadata

Authors
GOTHAM, K., RISI, S., DAWSON, G., TAGER-FLUSBERG, H., JOSEPH, R., CARTER, A., HEPBURN, S., McMAHON, W., RODIER, P., HYMAN, S. L., SIGMAN, M., ROGERS, S., LANDA, R., SPENCE, M. A., OSANN, K., FLODMAN, P., VOLKMAR, F., HOLLANDER, E., BUXBAUM, J., PICKLES, A., & LORD, C.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
GOTHAM, KATHERINE
Venue
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-06
Volume
47
Issue
6
Pages
642-651
ISSN
0890-8567 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2034529431
Cited by
374
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 49
FWCI
11.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Funders
NIMH (RO1 MH066469, NIMH R25MH067723)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, replication, factor structure, predictive validity, sensitivity and specificity, young children, autism diagnosis
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Autistic Disorder, Child, Developmental Disabilities, Child Development Disorders, Pervasive, Child, Preschool, Diagnosis, Differential, Down Syndrome, Female, Humans, Male, Personality Assessment, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results

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