Utility of the Social Communication Questionnaire-Current and Social Responsiveness Scale as Teacher-Report Screening Tools for Autism Spectrum Disorders

Abstract

Limited research exists regarding the role of teachers in screening for Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). The current study examined the use of the Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ) and Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS) as completed by parents and teachers about school-age children from the Simons Simplex Collection. Using the recommended cutoff scores in the manuals and extant literature, the teacher-completed SCQ and SRS yielded lower sensitivity and specificity values than would be desirable; however, lowering the cutoff scores on both instruments improved sensitivity and specificity to more adequate levels for screening purposes. Using the adjusted cutoff scores, the SRS teacher form appears to be a slightly better screener than the SCQ. Implications and limitations are discussed, as well as areas for future research.

Psychometric Analysis of the Social Communication Questionnaire Using an Item-Response Theory Framework: Implications for the Use of the Lifetime and Current Forms

“…We caution researchers and clinicians about the administration and interpretation of the SCQ Current form. In particular, it may not be appropriate for some studies to use the Current form among children below 5 years old (e.g., Corsello et al 2007;Lee et al 2007;Oosterling et al 2010) or other special situations (e.g., teacher-report; Schanding et al 2012). First, the Current form was not intended as an alternative to the Lifetime form (Rutter et al 2003a, b).…”

“…However, subsequent validity studies did not confirm such psychometric properties of the SCQ when applied to different populations (e.g., individuals with intellectual disabilities, individuals with Down syndrome). At the cut-off of 15, most of these studies reported lower (< 0.80) and unsatisfactory balance of sensitivities and specificities (e.g., Allen, Silove, Williams, and Hutchins 2007;Brooks and Benson 2013;Eaves, Wingert, Ho, and Mickelson 2006;Oosterling et al 2010;Snow and Lecavalier 2008;Wiggins, Bakeman, Adamson, and Robins 2007;Witwer and Lecavalier 2007), and quite a few of them suggested lowering the cut-off for improving the discriminant utility of the SCQ (e.g., Corsello et al 2007;Johnson et al 2011;Lee, David, Rusyniak, Landa, and Newschaffer 2007;Schanding, Nowell, and Goin-Kochel 2012;Wiggins et al 2007). Therefore, the unpredictable nature of the SCQ has caused some researchers and clinicians to question its validity.…”

Screening for Autism with the SRS and SCQ: Variations across Demographic, Developmental and Behavioral Factors in Preschool Children

“…This cutoff results in a 96.8% likelihood of a later clinical diagnosis of ASD (Constantino et al 2007). Although Schanding et al (2012) did explore optimal cut offs for the SRS, this study’s sample had a very large age range. Therefore, we explored only the cut off reported in the manual in the current analysis.…”

Metacognitive Awareness of Facial Affect in Higher-Functioning Children and Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…Additionally, all participants had to show variability in their confidence judgments on the face processing task administered in this study; participants who responded with the same degree of confidence to all face stimuli were excluded from the sample. As the current literature suggests that screening instruments may be less sensitive in identifying higher-functioning participants with ASD (e.g., Eaves et al 2006; Papanikolaou et al 2009; Schanding et al 2012), participants with ASD were required to meet 2 of the following 3 diagnostic criteria: ≥7 on the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS; Lord et al 2002), ≥13 on the Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ; Rutter et al 2003), and ≥13 on the Autism Spectrum Screening Questionnaire (ASSQ; Ehlers et al 1999). Participants with typical development were excluded from the sample if they met any of these cutoff scores.…”