↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
185 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Diagnosing autism spectrum disorder in community settings using the Development and Well‐Being Assessment: validation in a UK population‐based twin sample
Published in
Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, July 2015
DOI 10.1111/jcpp.12447
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Increasing numbers of people are being referred for the assessment of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The NICE (UK) and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend gathering a developmental history using a tool that operationalises ICD/DSM criteria. However, the best-established diagnostic interview instruments are time consuming, costly and rarely used outside national specialist centres. What is needed is a brief, cost-effective measure validated in community settings. We tested the Development and Well-Being Assessment (DAWBA) for diagnosing ASD in a sample of children/adolescents representative of those presenting in community mental health settings. A general population sample of twins (TEDS) was screened and 276 adolescents were selected as at low (CAST score < 12; n = 164) or high risk for ASD (CAST score ≥ 15 and/or parent reported that ASD suspected/previously diagnosed; n = 112). Parents completed the ASD module of the DAWBA interview by telephone or online. Families were visited at home: the ADI-R and autism diagnostic observation schedule (ADOS) were completed to allow a best-estimate research diagnosis of ASD to be made. Development and Well-Being Assessment ASD symptom scores correlated highly with ADI-R algorithm scores (ρ = .82, p < .001). Good sensitivity (0.88) and specificity (0.85) were achieved using DAWBA computerised algorithms. Clinician review of responses to DAWBA questions minimally changed sensitivity (0.86) and specificity (0.87). Positive (0.82-0.95) and negative (0.90) predictive values were high. Eighty-six per cent of children were correctly classified. Performance was improved by using it in conjunction with the ADOS. The DAWBA is a brief structured interview that showed good sensitivity and specificity in this general population sample. It requires little training, is easy to administer (online or by interview) and diagnosis is aided by an algorithm. It holds promise as a tool for assisting with assessment in community settings and may help services implement the recommendations made by NICE and the American Academy of Pediatrics regarding diagnosis of young people on the autism spectrum.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 184 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 15%
Researcher 25 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Other 29 16%
Unknown 57 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 48 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 9%
Social Sciences 14 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 63 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 22 May 2019.
All research outputs
#2,527,972
of 34,559,526 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry
#904
of 3,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,278
of 301,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry
#11
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,559,526 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,920 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 301,985 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.