Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Autism
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mazefsky, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Oswald, D. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mazefsky, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Oswald, D. P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The discriminative ability and diagnostic utility of the ADOS-G, ADI-R, and GARS for children in a clinical setting

Carla A. Mazefsky

University of Pittsburgh, USA

Donald P. Oswald

Virginia Commonwealth University, USA, doswald{at}vcu.edu

Recent years have seen a surge of interest in assessment instruments for diagnosing autism in children. Instruments have generally been developed and evaluated from a research perspective. The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Generic (ADOS-G), Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R), and Gilliam Autism Rating Scale (GARS) have received considerable attention and are widely used. The objective of this study was to explore the diagnostic utility and discriminative ability of these tools using a clinical population of children referred to a specialty diagnostic clinic over a 3 year time span. The results indicated that the ADOS-G and ADI-R led to approximately 75 percent agreement with team diagnoses, with most inconsistencies being false positive diagnoses based on the measures. The GARS was generally ineffective at discriminating between children with various team diagnoses and consistently underestimated the likelihood of autism. The findings have important implications for the use of these measures in both research and clinical practice.

Key Words: assessment • autism • clinical sample • differential diagnosis

Autism, Vol. 10, No. 6, 533-549 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/1362361306068505
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?