Brief Report: Comparability of DSM-IV and DSM-5 ASD Research Samples.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) criteria for ASD have been criticized for being too restrictive, especially for more cognitively-able individuals. It is unclear, however, if high-functioning individuals deemed eligible for research via standardized diagnostic assessments would meet DSM-5 c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders Vol. 43; no. 5; pp. 1236 - 1243
Autores principales: Mazefsky, C., McPartland, J., Gastgeb, H., Minshew, N.
Formato: research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Springer Nature May2013
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
Descripción
Sumario:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) criteria for ASD have been criticized for being too restrictive, especially for more cognitively-able individuals. It is unclear, however, if high-functioning individuals deemed eligible for research via standardized diagnostic assessments would meet DSM-5 criteria. This study investigated the impact of DSM-5 on the diagnostic status of 498 high-functioning participants with ASD research diagnoses. The percent of participants satisfying all DSM-5-requirements varied significantly with reliance on data from the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS; 33 %) versus Autism Diagnostic Interview- Revised (ADI-R; 83 %), highlighting the impact of diagnostic methodology on ability to document DSM-5 symptoms. Utilizing combined ADOS/ADI-R data, 93 % of participants met DSM-5 criteria, which suggests likely continuity between DSM-IV and DSM-5 research samples characterized with these instruments in combination.