| Title |
Brief Report: Comparability of DSM-IV and DSM-5 ASD Research Samples
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10803-012-1665-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. A. Mazefsky, J. C. McPartland, H. Z. Gastgeb, N. J. Minshew |
| Abstract |
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) criteria for ASD have been criticized for being too restrictive, especially for more cognitively-able individuals. It is unclear, however, if high-functioning individuals deemed eligible for research via standardized diagnostic assessments would meet DSM-5 criteria. This study investigated the impact of DSM-5 on the diagnostic status of 498 high-functioning participants with ASD research diagnoses. The percent of participants satisfying all DSM-5-requirements varied significantly with reliance on data from the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS; 33 %) versus Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R; 83 %), highlighting the impact of diagnostic methodology on ability to document DSM-5 symptoms. Utilizing combined ADOS/ADI-R data, 93 % of participants met DSM-5 criteria, which suggests likely continuity between DSM-IV and DSM-5 research samples characterized with these instruments in combination. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 20% |
| Colombia | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Spain | 1 | 10% |
| Japan | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Scientists | 3 | 30% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 145 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 26 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 15% |
| Researcher | 20 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 31 | 20% |
| Unknown | 28 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 59 | 39% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 22 | 14% |
| Unknown | 31 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 15 September 2016.
All research outputs
#2,078,159
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
#867
of 5,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,733
of 195,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
#13
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,491 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 195,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.