ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2026
Diagnostic Agreement of a Structured Telehealth Adult Autism Assessment.
Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis preregistered retrospective study evaluated diagnostic agreement under shared-information conditions for a structured, neurodiversity-affirming telehealth adult autism assessment protocol mapped to DSM-5-TR criteria.
methodsThe sample included 100 adults who primarily communicated through spoken language and was intentionally stratified to include at least 50% Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC; 51% achieved). Evaluations generally included two 90-min structured interviews across ten DSM-5-TR-mapped domains, criterion-level decision rules, behavioral observation, questionnaires, and collateral information when available. A blinded expert reviewed de-identified assessment materials and independently classified cases as ASD or non-ASD.
resultsOverall agreement was 86.0% (95% CI [77.9%, 91.5%]), with Cohen's κ = 0.684 (95% CI [0.531, 0.836]). The point estimate exceeded the preregistered 0.66 benchmark, although the confidence interval included lower values. ASD classification rates were 68% for original clinicians and 66% for expert review. Positive and negative percent agreement were 90.9% and 76.5%, respectively. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested lower agreement among BIPOC participants, although estimates were imprecise.
conclusionFindings provide preliminary evidence that a structured, neurodiversity-affirming telehealth framework can yield concordant ASD/non-ASD classifications under shared-information conditions. Neurodiversity-affirming practice can coexist with structured, criterion-based diagnostic decision-making: affirming clients' experiences and reducing deficit-based assumptions does not require presuming an autism diagnosis. Because reviewers relied on substantially overlapping information, findings do not establish diagnostic accuracy or criterion validity. Independent prospective validation using separate evaluations and multiple blinded reviewers is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42862434What 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.