ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2025
Identifying the Best Discriminating Items for Three Autism Screening Methods in a High-Likelihood Sibling Population.
Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The questions used in caregiver-completed autism screening tools vary in how well they differentiate between children with autism and those without, depending on the age group screened, the target population, and language or cultural contexts. This study examined the best discriminating items for the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers, Revised with Follow-up (M-CHAT-R/F), Social Attention and Communication Surveillance, Revised (SACS-R), and ASDetect in a high-likelihood younger sibling population in a multicultural setting. Alternative scoring methods to improve the utility of these screening tools were also examined. Item response data were extracted from a published study on 141 siblings who underwent autism screening at 12, 18 and 30 months old, followed by a diagnostic assessment at 36 to 48 months old. 32 (22.7%) were diagnosed with autism. The best discriminating items from the M-CHAT-R/F were 'follows a point', 'pretend play', 'protoimperative pointing', 'protodeclarative pointing', 'shows objects', 'responds to name', 'follows gaze' and 'understands instructions'. An alternative scoring method ('Sing-CHAT') was established using these items and performed better than the full M-CHAT-R/F when using failing ≥1 item as a cutoff. In contrast, almost all items on the SACS-R and ASDetect were found to be significantly discriminating at 18 and 30 months old. For these, however, using all items instead of just key items, and using a lower cut-off threshold, resulted in improvements in psychometric properties. Best discriminating items in screening tools vary by age, population and culture, and alternative scoring methods could potentially improve autism detection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40715981What 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.