Purpose Professionals working with community populations are often presented with complicated cases where it is difficult to determine which diagnosis or diagnoses are appropriate. Differentiating among neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and intellectual disability can be a complex process, especially, as these disorders have some overlapping symptoms and often co-occur in young children. This series of case studies aims to present commonly overlapping symptoms in children who present to clinics with developmental concerns. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents three case studies that were completed at a free community ASD screening clinic in Southern California. Findings The case studies have common presenting behaviors and symptoms (e.g. social communication difficulties) that often co-occur across diagnoses; explanations for the final diagnoses are given in each case. Research limitations/implications Conclusions from these three cases cannot generalize to all children being seen in clinics for neurodevelopmental concerns. Practical implications This series of case studies highlights commonly overlapping symptoms in children who present for differential diagnosis with social and/or behavioral concerns. Implications for educational placement and intervention are discussed. Social implications These cases highlight the challenges involved in the differential and dual diagnostic process for young children with developmental concerns. Diagnostic considerations can affect later educational placement and opportunities for socialization. Originality/value This series of case studies provide practical information for clinicians about how to effectively differentiate between commonly occurring neurodevelopmental disorders, particularly given recent changes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 5th edition (DSM-5).

Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, the importance of telehealth has rapidly increased, in particular as many in‐person clinics have closed. Early intervention is crucial for improving outcomes in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). As such, the need for timely assessments and diagnoses remains despite COVID‐19‐related closures. This study offers preliminary data collected from 23 children assessed through a no‐cost autism clinic in Southern California using a novel telehealth model. This includes an overview of an adapted, telehealth version of in‐person observational assessment techniques for diagnosing autism. In addition, preliminary data on social validity assessed at two points are presented. Findings suggest that caregivers found the telehealth assessment procedures acceptable and convenient, and overall were satisfied with both the assessment and the written report/verbal feedback. Implications for future uses of telehealth are discussed, including how telehealth can assist with decision‐making around school‐based services and/or placement.

No abstract

IntroductionDuring the early beginnings of COVID-19, service providers were forced to close their doors and move their services online, causing significant disruptions for many families and communities, such as those with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). In this study, we examined the extent to which COVID-19 disrupted services for the IDD community in California.MethodsSecondary data were analyzed from a survey (N = 1,082) disseminated by the Autism Society of California in May 2020. Respondents were placed into two categories: autism spectrum disorder (ASD) only (n = 794) and IDD other than ASD (n = 288).ResultsThere were significant differences in services between diagnostic groups (<.05). There was a threefold difference in loss of respite services in the ASD (4.3%) versus the IDD group (12.9%). In the ASD group, 48.5% reported no change at all in respite services received, whereas in the IDD group, 71.5% reported no change. Before the pandemic, a higher mean number of medical and therapeutic services was reported as received in the ASD group (M = 1.38) than in the IDD group (M = 1.04). However, at the time of the survey, the IDD group reported a higher mean number of such services (M = 1.32) than the ASD group (M = 1.02). Differences were also seen by race/ethnicity. Before lockdown, there were no significant differences in the mean number of services reported by race/ethnicity among the full sample. However, at the time of the survey, a significantly higher mean number of services was reported by respondents who identified as White (M = 1.26) compared to people of color (M = .91), p < .05.DiscussionTo our knowledge, this study is the first to compare services received by IDD diagnostic groups during COVID-19. Findings help elucidate the negative impact of COVID-19 on the IDD community in California, as well as inform strategies for the ongoing and post-pandemic periods.