| Title |
The objectivity of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) in naturalistic clinical settings
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00787-015-0793-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eric Zander, Charlotte Willfors, Steve Berggren, Nora Choque-Olsson, Christina Coco, Anna Elmund, Åsa Hedfors Moretti, Anette Holm, Ida Jifält, Renata Kosieradzki, Jenny Linder, Viviann Nordin, Karin Olafsdottir, Lina Poltrago, Sven Bölte |
| Abstract |
The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) is a first-choice diagnostic tool in autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Excellent interpersonal objectivity (interrater reliability) has been demonstrated for the ADOS under optimal conditions, i.e., within groups of highly trained "research reliable" examiners in research setting. We investigated the spontaneous interrater reliability among clinically trained ADOS users across multiple sites in clinical routine. Forty videotaped administrations of the ADOS modules 1-4 were rated by five different raters each from a pool of in total 15 raters affiliated to 13 different clinical sites. G(q,k) coefficients (analogous to intraclass correlations), kappas (ĸ) and percent agreement (PA) were calculated. The median interrater reliability for items across the four modules was G(q,k) = .74-.83, with the single ADOS items ranging from .23 to .94. G(q,k) for total scores was .85-.92. For diagnostic classification (ASD/non-spectrum), PA was 64-82 % and Fleiss' ĸ .19-.55. Objectivity was lower for pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified and non-spectrum diagnoses as compared to autism. Interrater reliabilities of the ADOS items and domain totals among clinical users across multiple sites were in the same range as previously reported for research reliable users, while the one for diagnostic classification was lower. Differences in sample characteristics, rater skills and statistics compared with previous studies are discussed. Findings endorse the objectivity of the ADOS in naturalistic clinical settings, but also pinpoint its limitations and the need and value of adequate and continuous rater training. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 40% |
| Austria | 1 | 20% |
| Chile | 1 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 108 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 15% |
| Researcher | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 25 | 23% |
| Unknown | 15 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 48 | 44% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Unknown | 23 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 February 2022.
All research outputs
#5,466,139
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
#603
of 1,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,595
of 394,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
#11
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 394,102 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.