↓ Skip to main content

Utility of the 3Di Short Version for the Diagnostic Assessment of Autism Spectrum Disorder and Compatibility with DSM-5

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
Title
Utility of the 3Di Short Version for the Diagnostic Assessment of Autism Spectrum Disorder and Compatibility with DSM-5
Published in
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10803-016-2713-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geerte Slappendel, William Mandy, Jan van der Ende, Frank C. Verhulst, Ad van der Sijde, Jorieke Duvekot, David Skuse, Kirstin Greaves-Lord

Abstract

The Developmental Diagnostic Dimensional Interview-short version (3Di-sv) provides a brief standardized parental interview for diagnosing autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This study explored its validity, and compatibility with DSM-5 ASD. 3Di-sv classifications showed good sensitivity but low specificity when compared to ADOS-2-confirmed clinical diagnosis. Confirmatory factor analyses found a better fit against a DSM-5 model than a DSM-IV-TR model of ASD. Exploration of the content validity of the 3Di-sv for the DSM-5 revealed some construct underrepresentation, therefore we obtained data from a panel of 3Di-trained clinicians from ASD-specialized centers to recommend items to fill these gaps. Taken together, the 3Di-sv provides a solid basis to create a similar instrument suitable for DSM-5. Concrete recommendations are provided to improve DSM-5 compatibility.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 21%
Student > Bachelor 13 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 18 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 32 40%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 10%
Neuroscience 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 20 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 August 2016.
All research outputs
#8,647,454
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
#2,994
of 5,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,596
of 406,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
#53
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 406,823 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.