Accuracy of Three Screening Instruments in Identifying Preschool Children at Risk for Autism Spectrum Disorder
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An efficient approach for screening and identifying children at risk for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) remains a pressing need. The aim of this exploratory study was to examine the ability of two general developmental screening tests to identify children at risk for ASD. We compared the accuracy of one general developmental screening instrument, Ages and Stages Questionnaires (ASQ), and one general social emotional screening instrument, the Ages and Stages Questionnaire: Social Emotional (ASQ:SE), with the Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ), an ASD-specific screening instrument. Two hundred eight children between 36 and 66 months were recruited through 19 community ASD programs, websites, and magazines. The three screening instruments were given to 285 parent/child dyads with and without a diagnosis of ASD, online via a screening website linked to a university. Sixty-four children had been diagnosed with ASD and were receiving special education services (e.g., behavioral interventions) prior to their participation. The classification agreement of the ASQ (i.e., sensitivity = 84.38%, specificity = 81.45%) outperformed the other two screening instruments; classification agreement of the SCQ was sensitivity = 70.31% and specificity = 87.33%; and of the ASQ: SE, sensitivity = 82.81% and specificity = 72.40%. Agreement among the questionnaires ranged from moderate to strong as measured by Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients. Children diagnosed with ASD had scores below the screening cutoff points, indicating risk, most often on three ASQ domains: (a) communication, (b) gross motor, and (c) personal social. This exploratory study indicated the feasibility of using the ASQ in screening clinics for finding children at risk for ASD, if the ASQ is followed by specific ASD assessments. Design limitations, including a sample of children with ASD already receiving intervention services may explain the somewhat lower sensitivity of the SCQ.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it