![]() ![]() (15)00151-9įalkmer T, Anderson K, Falkmer M, Horlin C (2013) Diagnostic procedures in autism spectrum disorders: a systematic literature review. Ĭonstantino JN, Charman T (2016) Diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder: reconciling the syndrome, its diverse origins, and variation in expression. We conclude that such differences in interpretation of DSM-5 criteria provide a challenge for symptom operationalization which will be most effectively overcome by consensus, testing and reformulation.Īshwood KL, Buitelaar J, Murphy D, Spooren W, Charman T (2015) European clinical network: autism spectrum disorder assessments and patient characterisation. In addition to differences in the development of algorithms and cut-off scores, instruments also differed in the extent to which they follow DSM-5 decision-making rules for diagnostic classification. Results demonstrated significant variability in the number and nature of sub-criteria covered by the ADOS-2, 3di and DISCO-11. The development and decision-making rules integrated in their algorithms were then compared with DSM-5. Algorithm items of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Second Edition (ADOS-2), Developmental, Dimensional and Diagnostic Interview (3di) and Diagnostic Interview for Social and Communication Disorders-11th edition (DISCO-11) were mapped onto DSM-5 sub-criteria. This study aimed to: (1) establish the content validity of these three DSM-5-adapted algorithms, and (2) identify problems with the operationalization of DSM-5 diagnostic criteria in measurable and observable behaviors. ![]() Five years after the publication of DSM-5 in 2013, three widely used diagnostic instruments have published algorithms designed to represent its (sub-)criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in children and adolescents. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |