Mazefsky Carla A, Oswald Donald P
University of Pittsburgh, USA.
Autism. 2006 Nov;10(6):533-49. doi: 10.1177/1362361306068505.
Recent years have seen a surge of interest in assessment instruments for diagnosing autism in children. Instruments have generally been developed and evaluated from a research perspective. The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Generic (ADOS-G), Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R), and Gilliam Autism Rating Scale (GARS) have received considerable attention and are widely used. The objective of this study was to explore the diagnostic utility and discriminative ability of these tools using a clinical population of children referred to a specialty diagnostic clinic over a 3 year time span. The results indicated that the ADOS-G and ADI-R led to approximately 75 percent agreement with team diagnoses, with most inconsistencies being false positive diagnoses based on the measures. The GARS was generally ineffective at discriminating between children with various team diagnoses and consistently underestimated the likelihood of autism. The findings have important implications for the use of these measures in both research and clinical practice.
近年来，人们对儿童自闭症诊断评估工具的兴趣激增。这些工具一般是从研究角度开发和评估的。《自闭症诊断观察量表通用版》（ADOS-G）、《自闭症诊断访谈修订版》（ADI-R）和《 Gilliam自闭症评定量表》（GARS）受到了广泛关注并被广泛使用。本研究的目的是，在三年时间跨度内，对转介到专科诊断诊所的儿童临床群体使用这些工具，以探索其诊断效用和鉴别能力。结果表明，ADOS-G和ADI-R与团队诊断的一致性约为75%，大多数不一致情况是基于这些测量方法的假阳性诊断。GARS在区分不同团队诊断的儿童方面通常无效，并且一直低估自闭症的可能性。这些发现对这些测量方法在研究和临床实践中的应用具有重要意义。
