Systematic Review of the Measurement Properties of Tools Used to Measure Behaviour Problems in Young Children with Autism

Abstract

BackgroundBehaviour problems are common in young children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). There are many different tools used to measure behavior problems but little is known about their validity for the population.ObjectivesTo evaluate the measurement properties of behaviour problems tools used in evaluation of intervention or observational research studies with children with ASD up to the age of six years.MethodsBehaviour measurement tools were identified as part of a larger, two stage, systematic review. First, sixteen major electronic databases, as well as grey literature and research registers were searched, and tools used listed and categorized. Second, using methodological filters, we searched for articles examining the measurement properties of the tools in use with young children with ASD in ERIC, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. The quality of these papers was then evaluated using the COSMIN checklist.ResultsWe identified twelve tools which had been used to measure behaviour problems in young children with ASD, and fifteen studies which investigated the measurement properties of six of these tools. There was no evidence available for the remaining six tools. Two questionnaires were found to be the most robust in their measurement properties, the Child Behavior Checklist and the Home Situations Questionnaire—Pervasive Developmental Disorders version.ConclusionsWe found patchy evidence on reliability and validity, for only a few of the tools used to measure behaviour problems in young children with ASD. More systematic research is required on measurement properties of tools for use in this population, in particular to establish responsiveness to change which is essential in measurement of outcomes of intervention.PROSPERO Registration Number CRD42012002223

Measurement properties of tools used to assess depression in adults with and without autism spectrum conditions: A systematic review

“…In such a new area of research (depression in ASC), it could therefore be argued that adopting such rigorous methods might have lead us to overlook other relevant data which could indicate the usefulness of one tool over another. However, our results are consistent with other COSMIN reviews showing a paucity of research pertaining to the measurement of outcomes in those with ASC [e.g., Hanratty et al, 2015;Wigham & McConachie, 2014], despite a growing number of studies utilizing these tools. This is problematic as many studies which use a tool, do not typically provide adequate evidence regarding the appropriateness or measurement properties of that tool for use in a particular group (e.g., reporting internal consistency without checking the uni-dimensionality of the scale).…”

“…To accomplish this, a checklist was developed in a multi-disciplinary, international consensus-study involving 43 experts in health outcome measurement: The consensus based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN). A growing number of studies are using COS-MIN to assess the evidence for the appropriateness and measurement properties of tools in ASC [Hanratty et al, 2015;Wigham & McConachie, 2014], in order to make evidence based recommendations for future research and clinical practice. Hence, we searched for evidence regarding the measurement properties of these tools in each group, using a comprehensive search tool validated for this purpose [Mokkink et al, 2010;Terwee, Jansma, Riphagen, & de Vet, 2009], and subsequently rated the quality of the available evidence using this validated research tool [COSMIN, Mokkink, Terwee, Patrick, Alonso, & Stratford, 2012].…”

Muscle tone assessments for children aged 0 to 12 years: a systematic review

“…To determine an overall evaluation of psychometric properties of each assessment, the level of evidence was used. This measure was initially developed to rate systematic reviews of clinical trials, but it has also been applied in systematic reviews for measurement properties . The level of evidence is scored as ‘strong’, ‘moderate’, ‘limited’, ‘conflicting’, or ‘unknown’ (Table ), which are determined by the number of studies and the quality of the studies that could be judged by a COSMIN rating (excellent, good, fair, or poor) and the finding of each study (positive or negative) …”

Updated report on tools to measure outcomes of clinical trials in fragile X syndrome

“…The SCQ is adequate for evaluating shorter - term outcomes. SCQ’s reliability [173, 174] and validity ([163]; reviewed in [12]) support the limited tool quality level.Repetitive Behavior Scale-Revised (RBS-R). RRBs are a broad range of behaviors that are subdivided into two conceptual categories [175]: “lower-order” motor actions associated with lower developmental levels and characterized by repetition of movement (e.g., dyskinesias, stereotyped and repetitive manipulation of objects, and repetitive forms of self-injurious behavior (SIB)), and more complex or “higher-order” behaviors associated with higher cognitive abilities (e.g., object attachments, insistence on sameness, repetitive language, and circumscribed interests) [176, 177].…”