Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35471566›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Analysis of Race and Sex Bias in the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS-2).

Luther G Kalb, Vini Singh, Ji Su Hong, Calliope Holingue, Natasha N Ludwig, Danika Pfeiffer, Rachel Reetzke, Alden L Gross, Rebecca Landa

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. An Examination of Racial Bias in Scoring the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) Module 3: An Item Response Theory Analysis.Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Luther G KalbCenter for Autism and Related Disorders, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland.
Vini SinghCenter for Autism and Related Disorders, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland.
Ji Su HongCenter for Autism and Related Disorders, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland.
Calliope HolingueCenter for Autism and Related Disorders, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland.
Natasha N LudwigDepartment of Neuropsychology, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland.
Danika PfeifferCenter for Autism and Related Disorders, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland.
Rachel ReetzkeCenter for Autism and Related Disorders, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland.
Alden L GrossDepartment of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Rebecca LandaCenter for Autism and Related Disorders, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland.
Johns Hopkins Medicine · USCenter for Autism and Related Disorders · USJohns Hopkins University · USKennedy Krieger Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: There are long-standing disparities in the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) across race and sex. Surprisingly, few studies have examined whether these disparities arise partially out of systematic biases in the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, Second Edition (ADOS-2), the reference standard measure of ASD. Objective: To examine differential item functioning (DIF) of ADOS-2 items across sex and race. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a cross-sectional study of children who were evaluated for ASD between 2014 and 2020 at a specialty outpatient clinic located in the Mid-Atlantic region of the US. Data were analyzed from July 2021 to February 2022. Exposures: Child race (Black/African American vs White) and sex (female vs male). Main Outcomes and Measures: Item-level biases across ADOS-2 harmonized algorithm items, including social affect (SA; 10 items) and repetitive/restricted behaviors (RRBs; 4 items), were evaluated across 3 modules. Measurement bias was identified by examining DIF and differential test functioning (DTF), within a graded response, item response theory framework. Statistical significance was determined by a likelihood ratio χ2 test, and a series of metrics was used to examine the magnitude of DIF and DTF. Results: A total of 6269 children (mean [SD] age, 6.77 [3.27] years; 1619 Black/African American [25.9%], 3151 White [50.3%], and 4970 male [79.4%]), were included in this study. Overall, 16 of 140 ADOS-2 diagnostic items (11%) had a significant DIF. For race, 8 items had a significant DIF, 6 of which involved SA. No single item showed DIF consistently across all modules. Most items with DIF had greater difficulty and poorer discrimination in Black/African American children compared with White children. For sex, 5 items showed significant DIF. DIF was split across SA and RRB. However, hand mannerisms evidenced DIF across all 5 algorithms, with generally greater difficulty. The magnitude of DIF was only moderate to large for 2 items: hand mannerisms (among female children) and repetitive interests (among Black/African American children). The overall estimated effect of DIF on total DTF was not large. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the ADOS-2 does not have widespread systematic measurement bias across race or sex. However, the findings raise some concerns around underdetection that warrant further research.

Indexed as

Autism Spectrum DisorderAutistic DisorderChildCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleRacial GroupsSexism

Identifiers

PMID35471566
PMCPMC9044110
OpenAlexW4224921390

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.