How well can commonly used anxiety scales detect treatment outcomes in the context of autism?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Anxiety is one of the most prevalent mental health challenges in autistic children, yet there is limited evidence on effective tools to measure treatment outcomes. Previous research with non-autistic children has found that the Child Anxiety Impact Scale, Parent Version achieved good diagnostic accuracy when measuring treatment outcomes and performed better than a commonly used symptom measure. However, this has not been evaluated for autistic children. The present study examined the psychometric properties of the Child Anxiety Impact Scale, Parent Version in autistic children and compared its utility against other anxiety symptom measures, to detect treatment outcomes as assessed by a gold-standard diagnostic interview, the Anxiety and Related Disorders Interview Schedule, Child Version, Parent Interview with the Autism Spectrum Addendum. Data were used from 212 children (aged 7–13 years) who participated in a randomised controlled trial. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analyses were conducted, and subsequent subgroup analyses were conducted using DeLong tests. Results demonstrated that the Child Anxiety Impact Scale, Parent Version had strong psychometric properties, with total scores significantly outperforming other measures in predicting post-treatment recovery from anxiety diagnoses. These findings have implications for future choices of treatment outcome measures in research and clinical practice. Lay abstract Study on the utility of anxiety scales to detect anxiety diagnostic treatment outcomes in autistic children Why was the study done? The importance of having valid and reliable anxiety measures for autistic children has been highlighted as a research priority by professionals and people with lived experience. Yet, while anxiety has been frequently assessed in autistic children, we do not currently know much about how well commonly used anxiety measures work, especially parent reports, in this context. This has significant implications for care planning and resource allocation for autistic children who experience significant anxiety problems. What did the researchers do? The research team studied data collected in a previously published multi-centred randomised controlled trial (RCT) testing an adapted cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety (Wood et al., 2020) to better understand how different anxiety measures did, compared to gold-standard anxiety diagnostic assessments, in detecting treatment outcomes. They focused in particular on the Child Anxiety Impact Scale, Parent Version (CAIS-P). What did the researchers find? This study found that the CAIS-P did better than conventional anxiety symptom measures in detecting treatment outcomes for anxiety problems in autistic children. What do the findings mean? This study adds to the current evidence base to inform choices of measurement of anxiety problems in the context of autism.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».