Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33284813›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Modifying and validating the social responsiveness scale edition 2 for use with deaf children and young people.

Barry Wright, Helen Phillips, Ann Le Couteur, Jennifer Sweetman, Rachel Hodkinson, Amelia Ralph-Lewis, Emily Hayward, Alice Brennan, Josie Mulloy, Natalie Day and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Barry WrightUniversity of York, York, England.ORCID 0000-0002-8692-6001
Helen PhillipsLeeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, York, England.
Ann Le CouteurNewcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom.
Jennifer SweetmanLeeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, York, England.
Rachel HodkinsonLeeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, York, England.ORCID 0000-0002-3972-2890
Amelia Ralph-LewisSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Emily HaywardLeeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, York, England.ORCID 0000-0002-2413-0104
Alice BrennanLeeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, York, England.
Josie MulloySurrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Leatherhead, United Kingdom.
Natalie DayLeeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, York, England.
Martin BlandUniversity of York, York, England.
Victoria AllgarUniversity of York, York, England.
Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of York · GBNewcastle University · GBSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust · GBSurrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K015435/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A Delphi consensus methodology was used to adapt a screening tool, the Social Responsiveness Scale- 2 (SRS-2), for use with deaf children including those whose preferred communication method is sign language. Using this approach; 27 international experts (The Delphi International Expert Panel), on the topic of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in deaf people, contributed to the review of item content. A criterion for agreement was set at 80% of experts on each item (with 75% acceptable in the final fourth round). The agreed modifications are discussed. The modified SRS-2 research adaptation for deaf people (referred to here as the "SRS-2 Deaf adaptation") was then translated into British Sign Language using a robust translation methodology and validated in England in a sample of 198 deaf children, 76 with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and 122 without ASD. The SRS-2 Deaf adaptation was compared blind to a NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) guideline standard clinical assessment. The area under the Receiver Operating (ROC) curve was 0.811 (95% CI: 0.753, 0.869), with an optimal cut-off value of 73, which gave a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 67%. The Cronbach Alpha coefficient was 0.968 suggesting high internal consistency. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient was 0.897, supporting test-retest reliability. This performance is equivalent to similar instruments used for screening ASD in the hearing population.

Indexed as

Social InteractionAdolescentAutism Spectrum DisorderChildChild, PreschoolDeafnessDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansMalePsychological TestsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID33284813
PMCPMC7721463
OpenAlexW3112021987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.