ArticleEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2025
A novel screening instrument for the assessment of autism in German language: validation of the German version of the RAADS-R, the RADS-R.
Article in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting emotional valence in autism: a preregistered study in the Bayesian Brain framework.Molecular autism · 2026Article
- The influence of interpersonal synchrony and autism on impressions of dyadic interactions: a preregistered study.Molecular autism · 2025Article
- Comparison of face attention bias in adults with ASD, ADHD, or comorbid ADHD+ASD.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2025Article
- Are prediction error modifications domain specific in autism but domain general in ADHD?Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Ritvo Autism Asperger Diagnostic Scale-Revised (RAADS-R) demonstrated excellent results in its original study, with a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 100% (Ritvo et al. in J Autism Dev Disord 41:1076-1089, 2011). As a result, it was included in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines (Recommendations | Autism spectrum disorder in adults: diagnosis and management | Guidance | NICE, 2022). The questionnaire includes 80 questions across four subcategories (language, social relatedness, circumscribed interests, sensory motor). So far, the subcategory sensory motor has not been addressed in most available instruments, despite being part of the diagnostic criteria specified in DSM-5 (Falkai et al., in Diagnostisches Und Statistisches Manual Psychischer Störungen DSM-5. Hogrefe, 2015) and ICD-11 (ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics, 2022). In our validation study, we tested a translated German version of the questionnaire in 299 individuals (110 persons with ASD according to ICD-10 F84.0, F84.5, 64 persons with an primary mental disorders (PMD), 125 persons with no disorders). To enhance the practical use of the instrument in clinical everyday practice, the questionnaire was completed by the participants without the presence of a clinician-unlike the original study. Psychiatric diagnoses were established following the highest standards, and psychometric properties were calculated using established protocols. The German version of the RADS-R yielded very good results, with a high sensitivity of 92.5% and a high specificity of 93.6%. The area under the curve (AUC = 0.976), indicates a high quality and discriminatory power of RADS-R. Furthermore, the ROC curve analysis showed that the optimal threshold to distinguish between the ASD and non-ASD groups in the German version of the RAADS-R is a score of 81. In comparison to the RADS-R, the co-administered instruments Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS), Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ), and Empathy Quotient (EQ) each showed slightly better specificity but worse sensitivity in this sample.The study included individuals already diagnosed with ASD according to ICD-10 (F84.0, F84.5), with or without an primary mental disorders, preventing us from identifying the influence of comorbidities on the RADS-R results. In addition, a self-report questionnaire has generally only limited objectivity and may allow for false representation of the symptoms. The RADS-R compares well with other questionnaires and can provide valuable additional information. It could turn out to be a helpful diagnostic tool for patients in Germany. We propose naming the German version RADS-R (Ritvo Autism Diagnostic Scale - rRevised) to reflect the change in terminology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.