Screening for Autism in Mexico

Abstract

In order to conduct the screening phase of the first epidemiological survey of autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) in Mexico, we needed a screening tool to detect autistic symptomatology in a large sample of school-age children. We used the Spanish version of the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS). We recruited a clinical sample of 200 children (81% males; mean age: 7.4 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of ASDs and a sample of 363 control children (59.5% males; mean age: 8.5 years) without ASDs. Three-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) identified a main effect of clinical status (ASDs vs. controls) for both parent and teacher scales, but no gender or age effect. The mean total and subscale raw scores were significantly different between the clinical and control groups for the parent and for the teacher SRS (P < 0.001). The internal consistency of the SRS was excellent. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses showed excellent discriminant validity of the SRS in the Mexican sample (area under the curve: 0.962 for the parent, 0.960 for the teacher). ROC curves were also used to determine which cutoff would provide the best trade-off between sensitivity and specificity. Mexican SRS scores were significantly higher than in the U.S. and German population for typically developing children but comparable for clinically referred subjects. The SRS is an acceptable screening instrument for epidemiological studies of ASDs in Mexico. Its psychometric properties are excellent and comparable to those derived from North American and other samples.

Cross-cultural differences in the Parent Rated Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS)? Evaluation of the Finnish version among high-functioning school aged males with and without autism spectrum disorder

“…The SRS total raw mean score in our ASD sample (M = 89.9) was lower than in the original SRS validation studies conducted in the US (M = 101.5) (Constantino & Gruber, 2005), Germany (M = 102.2;Bö lte et al, 2011), and Mexico (M = 102.2;Fombonne et al, 2012), however, again, closer to the mean scores in Japan (M = 87.3; Kamio et al, 2012), and Netherlands (M = 88.8; Roeyers et al, 2011). In the SRS manual studies using the SRS are reviewed (Constantino & Gruber, 2012, pp.…”

“…A cut-off score of 46 is considerably lower than the original raw cut-off score for primary screening reported in the SRS manual (Constantino & Gruber, 2005), and also lower than the cut-off scores derived from German and Mexican validation samples (Bö lte et al, 2008(Bö lte et al, , 2011Fombonne, Marcin, Bruno, Tinoco, & Marquez, 2012), however, closer to the suggested cut-off for primary screening in Japan and Netherlands (Kamio et al, 2012;Roeyers et al, 2011). In screening measures for rare disorders, such as the ASD, a high sensitivity is desirable, and may arguably be a more important feature than is high specificity since their principal role is to correctly identify the greatest number of cases meeting diagnostic criteria.…”

Propriedades psicométricas da Escala de Responsividade Social-2 para Transtornos do Espectro Autista

“…Dessa forma, a identificação precoce é um dos principais preditores de resultado funcional e de adaptação social de pacientes com TEA 15 . Ressalta-se que a aplicação do instrumento em professores mostrou propriedades psicométri-cas semelhantes àquelas obtidas pelo relato dos pais 7 .…”

“…A ERS já foi extensamente traduzida em diversas culturas [6][7][8][9][10] . A ERS tem se mostrado um instrumento válido e confiável [6][7][8][9][10][11][12] , mas suas propriedades foram exploradas mais extensamente apenas segundo a Teoria Clássica dos Testes. A ERS não foi suficientemente explorada segundo a Teoria de Resposta ao Item ou de acordo com os modelos Rasch.…”

Observation-centered Approach to ASD Assessment in Tanzania

“…Preliminary efforts have been made to validate ASD measures cross culturally in many developed nations (e.g., Bolte, Poustka, & Con stantino, 2008;Fombonne, Marcin, Bruno, Tinoco, & Marquez, 2012;Pereira, Riesgo, & Wagner, 2008;Wong et al, 2004), yet more than 20 years after Bracken and Barona's suggestions, options remain limited in many African nations. This may be in part because validation efforts can be time intensive, involving multiple steps: (a) a multistep translation process involving source to target language translation, (b) blind back-translation, (c) back-translation repetition, (d) review by a bilingual committee, and (e) a range of additional validation procedures (e.g., pilot and field testing and regional norm development; Bracken & Barona, 1991).…”