Criterion validity of the Autism Spectrum Rating Scales 2-5 parent report

Camodeca, Amy; Walcott, Katy

doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2021.101820

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The non-significant findings regarding Total is consistent with the results of Simpson et al (2022), as well as the available research that utilized the ASRS Parent forms (Camodeca, 2019; Camodeca & Walcott, 2021). The above idea that these questions address and/or can be interpreted to address non-ASD-specific behavior may explain the weak findings of this scale.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Atypical Language, Sensory Sensitives, Stereotypy, and Behavioral Rigidity demonstrated the weakest performance, consistent with prior conclusions of Camodeca (2019) and Camodeca and Walcott (2021) from ASRS-parent forms. One explanation for weak performance is overlapping symptoms of ASD with other diagnoses.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…Unusual Behavior was a comparatively stronger scale for ASD-group classification on the ASRS-Parent 6-18 (Camodeca, 2019), but predicted assignment to the Non -ASD group on the ASRS-Parent 2-5 (Camodeca & Walcott, 2021). Potentially, the high degree of heterogeneity in ASD is being captured by the Treatment Scales comprising the Unusual Behavior scale (Camodeca & Walcott, 2021; Goldstein & Naglieri, 2013). In this manner, score profiles of scores could be a focus of future research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Specifically, while ASD may include difficulties measured by multiple Treatment scales (e.g., sensory sensitivities, rigidity), social weaknesses are a consistent, core ASD symptom (Norris & Lecavalier, 2010). Third, these four scales have also emerged as stronger scales in ASRS-Parent form research (Camodeca, 2019; Camodeca & Walcott, 2021). Thus, expanding on items from DSM-5, Social, Peer, and SER scales could be a starting point for improvement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, Total was the only score investigated of the 13 available. Research with other questionnaires suggests ASD core-feature specific scores may be useful if a global score is non-significant (Camodeca, 2019; Camodeca & Walcott, 2021). Thus, conclusions may not represent all ASRS-T 6-18 scores.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Criterion Validity of the Autism Spectrum Rating Scales Teacher Report

Camodeca

2024

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a need to investigate the diagnostic utility of autism diagnostic questionnaires in school-age children, who are increasingly being referred for autism assessment. Aside from the standardization sample, little research has been conducted on the Autism Spectrum Rating Scales, particularly regarding teacher reports. This study investigated the criterion validity of the Autism Spectrum Rating Scales-Teacher report for ages 6–18 (ASRS-T6-18) in a well-characterized community sample of 409 children (autism [AUT] n = 122; non-autism [NOT] n = 287; [Formula: see text] age = 9.91) evaluated with the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-2, a well-validated autism diagnostic measure. Significant mean differences with small to moderate effect sizes ( d = 0.28–0.56) were observed for all scores except Self-Regulation, Adult interaction, and Attention. Logistic Regression and Receiver Operating Characteristic analyses conducted for the Summary, ASRS, and two Treatment scales (Peer and Social-Emotional Reciprocity) indicated low ORs (<|1.08|) and AUCs in the poor range (<.67). Total and Unusual Behavior emerged as comparatively stronger scales with covariates (age and IQ); other scales were generally similar with/without control variables. Sensitivity and specificity could not be optimized. The suggested 60 t-cutpoint had fair or good sensitivity (76.23–83.61) for all examined scales except Unusual Behavior (68.03). However, specificity was poor (46.93–54.36), with high false positive rates (45.64%–63.07%). In complex community samples, the ASRS-T6-18 behaves more like a screener as opposed to a diagnostic measure.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%