Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 353

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Between a ROC and a hard place: decision making and making decisions about using the SCQ

Open access
Corsello, Christina, Hus, Vanessa, Pickles, Andrew, Risi, Susan, Cook, Edwin H., Leventhal, Bennett L., Lord, Catherine·2007·Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: The Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ), formerly the Autism Screening Questionnaire (ASQ), is based on a well‐validated parent interview, the Autism Diagnostic Interview (ADI). It has shown promise as a screening measure for autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) in a research‐referred older sample, though recent studies with younger children reported lower sensitivities when using the suggested cutoff of ≥15 to differentiate ASDs from children with nonspectrum disorders (NS). Methods: Diagnostic discrimination of the SCQ was evaluated alone and in combination with the ADOS (Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule) in a clinical and research‐referred sample of 590 children and adolescents (2 to 16 years), with best estimate consensus diagnoses of autism, pervasive developmental disorder, not otherwise specified (PDD‐NOS) and non‐ASD disorders. The SCQ was completed before the evaluation in most cases. Performance of the SCQ was also compared with the Autism Diagnostic Interview – Revised (ADI‐R). Results: Absolute scores and sensitivity in the younger children and specificity for all groups were lower than reported in the original study. Using receiver operating curves (ROC) to examine the area under the curve (AUC), the SCQ was more similar to the ADI‐R total score in differentiating ASD from NS disorders in the older (8–10, >11) than younger age groups (<5, 5–7). Lowering the cutoff score in the 2 younger groups improved sensitivity, with specificity remaining relatively low in all groups. Using the SCQ in combination with the ADOS resulted in improved specificity. Diagnostic discrimination was best using the ADI‐R and ADOS in combination. Conclusions: Those interested in using the SCQ should consider adjusting cutoff scores according to age and purpose, and using it in combination with another measure. Sensitivity or specificity may be prioritized for research or screening depending on goals.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01762.x

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 22 references

Cited by

See all 353

Metadata

Authors
Corsello, C., Hus, V., Pickles, A., Risi, S., Cook, E. H., Leventhal, B. L., & Lord, C.
Venue
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-08-09
Volume
48
Issue
9
Pages
932-940
ISSN
  • 0021-9630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7610
OpenAlex
W2098694537
Cited by
353
References
22
FWCI
6.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Between a ROC and a hard place: decision making and making decisions about using the SCQ. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01762.x
The paper
Corsello, C., Hus, V., Pickles, A., Risi, S., Cook, E. H., Leventhal, B. L., & Lord, C. (2007). Between a ROC and a hard place: decision making and making decisions about using the SCQ. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01762.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.