ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2018
Diagnosing Autism in Adults with Intellectual Disability: Validation of the DiBAS-R in an Independent Sample.
Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic Quarantine on Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders and Intellectual Disability: A Longitudinal Study.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2024Article
- Autism and psychopathology - prevalence, identification, and symptoms equivalence: study protocol.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Heart rate monitoring to detect acute pain in non-verbal patients: a study protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC psychiatry · 2023Article
- Developing a Diagnostic Algorithm for the Music-Based Scale for Autism Diagnostics (MUSAD) Assessing Adults with Intellectual Disability.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2019Article
- The Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders in Adult Psychiatric Inpatients: A Systematic Review.Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study assessed the diagnostic validity of the diagnostic behavioral assessment for autism spectrum disorders-revised (DiBAS-R; 19-item screening scale based on ratings by caregivers) in a clinical sample of 381 adults with ID. Analysis revealed a sensitivity of 0.82 and a specificity of 0.67 in the overall sample (70.3% agreement). Sensitivity (0.79) and specificity (0.84) were balanced in individuals with mild to moderate ID (83.3% agreement), while specificity was lower in individuals with severe to profound ID (sensitivity: 0.83, specificity: 0.34, 51% agreement). The level of ID as well as its interaction with ASD explained a significant proportion of the variance in the DiBAS-R scores. The DiBAS-R is an adequate screening tool, especially in individuals with mild to moderate ID.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28988347What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.