Abstract
Purpose: The aim of the present study was to compare scale and conditional reliability derived from item response theory analyses among the most commonly used, as well as several newly developed, observation, interview, and parent-report autism instruments.
Methods: When available, data sets were combined to facilitate large sample evaluation. Scale reliability (internal consistency, average corrected item-total correlations, and model reliability) and conditional reliability estimates were computed for total scores and for measure subscales.
Results: Generally good to excellent scale reliability was observed for total scores for all measures, scale reliability was weaker for RRB subscales of the ADOS and ADI-R, reflecting the relatively small number of items for these measures. For diagnostic measures, conditional reliability tended to be very good (> 0.80) in the regions of the latent trait where ASD and non-ASD developmental disability cases would be differentiated. For parent-report scales, conditional reliability of total scores tended to be excellent (> 0.90) across very wide ranges of autism symptom levels, with a few notable exceptions.
Conclusions: These findings support the use of all of the clinical observation, interview, and parent-report autism symptom measures examined, but also suggest specific limitations that warrant consideration when choosing measures for specific clinical or research applications.
Methods: When available, data sets were combined to facilitate large sample evaluation. Scale reliability (internal consistency, average corrected item-total correlations, and model reliability) and conditional reliability estimates were computed for total scores and for measure subscales.
Results: Generally good to excellent scale reliability was observed for total scores for all measures, scale reliability was weaker for RRB subscales of the ADOS and ADI-R, reflecting the relatively small number of items for these measures. For diagnostic measures, conditional reliability tended to be very good (> 0.80) in the regions of the latent trait where ASD and non-ASD developmental disability cases would be differentiated. For parent-report scales, conditional reliability of total scores tended to be excellent (> 0.90) across very wide ranges of autism symptom levels, with a few notable exceptions.
Conclusions: These findings support the use of all of the clinical observation, interview, and parent-report autism symptom measures examined, but also suggest specific limitations that warrant consideration when choosing measures for specific clinical or research applications.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Journal | Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders |
Early online date | 5 Apr 2023 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 5 Apr 2023 |
Bibliographical note
Copyright © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature. This version of the article has been accepted for publication, after peer review and is subject to Springer Nature’s AM terms of use [https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/policies/accepted-manuscript-terms], but is not the Version of Record and does not reflect post-acceptance improvements, or any corrections. The Version of Record is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-023-05967-yKeywords
- Autism
- Reliability
- Item response theory
- Observation
- Interview
- Questionnaire