Screening for Autism in Young Children with Developmental Delay: An Evaluation of the Developmental Behaviour Checklist: Early Screen
ABSTRACT The ability to identify children who require specialist assessment for the possibility of autism at as early an age as possible has become a growing area of research. A number of measures have been developed as potential screening tools for autism. The reliability and validity of one of these measures for screening for autism in young children with developmental problems was evaluated. The parents of 207 children aged 20-51 months completed the Developmental Checklist-Early Screen (DBC-ES), prior to their child undergoing assessment. Good interrater agreement and internal consistency was found, along with significant correlations with a clinician completed measure of autism symptomatology. High sensitivity was found, with lower specificity for the originally proposed 17-item screening tool and a five-item version.
- SourceAvailable from: med.monash.edu
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The predictive utility of mathematics curriculum-based measurement (MCBM) to identify students who are at risk for failure on important educational measures is an emerging area of study in need of further investigation. The present study sought to identify which of four MCBM probes could be accurately used to determine students' risk status on selected subtests of three important educational measures commonly used to make educational placement decisions (WIAT-II, WJ-ACH-III, and KM 3) in grades 2 (n = 49), 4 (n = 48), and 6 (n = 47). The study also sought to determine which type of student performance measurement strategy (i.e., level, slope, or dual discrepancy) on each of the four types of MCBM probes proved to be the best method to determine student risk status. The results of the study indicated that the ability of the MCBM probes to identify students' risk status was generally poor. However, evidence indicated that MCBM probes could be used more reliably and accurately to determine students in the low risk category than those in the high risk category across all probe types and administration times. Finally, the level method generated the greatest support and the slope method generated the least support for identification of high and low risk student status on each probe or combination of probes.
Article: [Autism].Der Nervenarzt 06/1973; 44(5):234-40. DOI:10.1300/J024v03n01_01 · 0.86 Impact Factor