Cited by 57Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchChild Nutrition and Feeding IssuesBehavioral and Psychological Studies

Evaluation of the revised algorithm of Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) in the diagnostic investigation of high-functioning children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders

Kamp-Becker, Inge, Ghahreman, Mardjan, Heinzel-Gutenbrunner, Monika, Peters, Mira, Remschmidt, Helmut, Becker, Katja·2013·Autism

Abstract

The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) is a semi-structured, standardized assessment designed for use in diagnostic evaluation of individuals with suspected autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The ADOS has been effective in categorizing children who definitely have autism or not, but has lower specificity and sometimes sensitivity for distinguishing children with milder ASDs. Revised ADOS algorithms have been recently developed. The goals of this study were to analyze the predictive validity of different ADOS algorithms for module 3, in particular for high-functioning autism spectrum disorder. The participants were 252 children and adolescents aged between four and 16 years, with a full-scale IQ above 70 (126 with a diagnosis of ASD, 126 with a heterogeneous non-spectrum diagnosis). As a main finding, sensitivity was substantially higher for the newly developed 'revised algorithm', both for autism versus non-spectrum, as well as for the broader ASD versus non-spectrum, using the higher cut-off. The strength of the original algorithm lies in its positive predictive power, while the revised algorithm shows weaknesses in specificity for non-autism ASD. As the ADOS is valid and reliable even for higher functioning ASD, the findings of the present study have been used to make recommendations regarding the best use of ADOS algorithms in a high-functioning sample.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1362361311408932

Cites

31 of 31 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
Kamp-Becker, I., Ghahreman, M., Heinzel-Gutenbrunner, M., Peters, M., Remschmidt, H., & Becker, K.
Affiliations
  • Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany
  • Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
Venue
Autism
Published
2011-05-24
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
87-102
ISSN
  • 1362-3613 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7005
OpenAlex
W2147357021
Cited by
57
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Autism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
Keywords
Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, autism spectrum disorder, high-functioning autism, diagnostic validity, sensitivity and specificity, positive predictive value, diagnostic thresholds, children and adolescents
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Algorithms, Child, Child Development Disorders, Pervasive, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Male, Predictive Value of Tests, Psychometrics, ROC Curve, 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