ADOS

Autism spectrum disorder: Clinical diagnosis and ADOS Test

Introduction: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neurobiological disorder of high prevalence, whose clinical diagnosis is a constant challenge. Objectives: To describe the clinical profile in a co hort of children with ASD from referral to the specialist to a diagnostic test. Patients and method: Descriptive study from the first symptoms perceived by the mother to the diagnostic confirmation of a series of 50 consecutive cases, which were clinically diagnosed with ASD between 2012 and 2016. Children aged between 3 to 10 years at the time of the ADOS-G test and language of at least one word were included. The children were evaluated neuropsychologically (functionality, intellectuality and ADOS test). We compared the median age to the neurological diagnosis, according to the autistic symptomatology and cognitive level. Results: The ADOS test corroborated an ASD in 44 children (88%), 93.1% were males. The average age at clinical diagnosis and ADOS test was 48.2 ± 19.3 and 62.6 ± 23.3 months. The neurological consultation in 72% of cases was parental/educator initiative due to symptoms such as social interaction disorder and language delay. The autistic symptomato logy was mild, moderate and severe in 34.1, 47.7 and 18.2% respectively. In five of 27 children who were neuropsychologically evaluated cognitive deficits were detected. The median age at diagnosis was significantly lower in children with severe autism symptoms vs the ones with mild-moderate symptoms (p-value 0.024). Conclusion: Autistic symptoms determine the early consultation; the refore, it is necessary to guide the general and educational population as well as health professionals regarding these symptoms.

[ADI-R and ADOS and the differential diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders: Interests, limits and openings]

Introduction: Current developments in international public health are leading qualified authorities to release clinical practice guidelines for Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) assessment and diagnosis. Such documents incorporate procedures that rely on the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R) and the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) which are considered to be the "gold standard" assessment measures in the evaluation of ASD. Although these tools do prove their effectiveness in the evaluation of autistic symptomatology, they nevertheless stumble whenever the situation becomes more complex and reveal differential diagnostic issues in infantile and adult autism cases. This differential diagnostic issue remains significant in the clinical practice of daily life and has strong implications for the course of therapeutic treatment.
Objectives: Our objective is to underline and nuance the metrological qualities of the ADI-R and the ADOS in the differential diagnosis of autistic disorders by presenting a synthesis of recent studies, thus supporting the interest of maintaining an open debate on diagnostic practices.
Methods: Our selective review of the recent literature focuses on studies that confront the ADI-R and the ADOS - used either independently or in a combination - with various differential issues in adulthood and childhood autism in order to highlight their qualities and limits.
Results: The ADI-R is a semi-structured interview applied by trained examiners and applied to relatives and/or caregivers who collect developmental information about the patient's first years of life on a variety of behaviors and skills. It is therefore relatively dependent on the availability and personal bias of the interviewed third parties. Metric features highlighted by the reviewed studies straightforwardly reveal a certain effectiveness of the tool and a good discrimination of childhood disorders. At the same time, the tool's discriminatory capacity seems insufficient when applied to toddlers, very young children, and adults alike. The latter seems particularly true when it comes to differentiating between autistic and schizophrenic spectrum disorders. The ADOS is a semi-structured standardized observation assessment tool that has experienced several successive developments, such as optimizations concerning the sensitivity of its cutoffs. Many works have contributed to building such a tool with reliable and solid metric qualities which nevertheless retain important biases such as the subjectivity of the caregiver or the evaluator during the scoring process. For assessments of autistic children the tool still has a good diagnostic validity but seems to retain cases of incorrect diagnosis of ASD (false positives). In other words, disorders or developmental disabilities of some children and adolescents could not be distinguished from ASD when relying on this test alone. The ADOS Module 4, designed for the diagnosis of adolescents and adults with fluent speech, has undergone less updating. This revisited algorithm has metrological qualities useful for clinicians and remains one of the few available tools for this population. Unfortunately, its diagnostic accuracy is lower when applied to women, the elderly, people with personality disorders or higher intellectual abilities, or for the discrimination between ASD and schizophrenia. Overall, scores from these two instruments bring strong evidence of their usefulness in the diagnostic process of ASD, provided that they are used with caution and a critical clinical perspective, and only as a secondary technical support. Their use in combination is effective since they are complementary and compensate for each other's limitations. However, their globalized hegemony as "gold-standard" tools constitutes a setback insofar as it constrains the diagnosis of ASD to a set of stereotyped items. The latter in turn sets a normative model of autism that excludes other phenotypic forms, especially in the case of women and the elderly. Finally, the discrimination between autism and psychosis for children seems to remain an insoluble task even for the ADI-R/ADOS combination.
Conclusions: The problematics of differential diagnosis remain critical for clinical approaches to autism. Therefore, formalizations of the diagnostic procedures must be able to remain open-minded and accompanied by a creative clinical approach, especially in the case of complex situations that are not soluble by means of conventional diagnostic tools. One possibility may lie in the deepening of the phenomenological approach to autism as an attempt to model the subjective phenomena of autistic subjects and thus operationalize elements that serve the diagnostic process. In the same way, a psychodynamic epistemology could help clinicians to go beyond the consideration of observable behaviors and scores, introducing a psychoanalytic point of view that interfaces objective behaviors with the individual's dynamic intrapsychic functioning. This project could be articulated with projective methodologies - notably the Rorschach test - which respects the needs for standardization and quantification of conventionally used diagnostic tools.

Sex Differences on the ADOS-2

The sex difference in the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may be magnified by sex differences on diagnostic measures. The current study compared autistic males and females on items on the gold-standard diagnostic measure, the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, Second Edition (ADOS-2). In a sample of 8-to-17-year old autistic individuals from research (n = 229) and clinical settings (n = 238), females were less likely to show atypicalities on most items related to social-communication behaviors and on total and subscale scores. When controlling for overall intensity of symptomatology, no sex differences survived statistical corrections. Diagnostic criteria and/or gold-standard assessments may be less sensitive to female presentations of ASD and/or autistic females may exhibit fewer or less intense behaviors characteristic of ASD.

A Comparative Analysis of the ADOS-G and ADOS-2 Algorithms: Preliminary Findings

The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) is a widely utilized observational assessment tool for diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders. The original ADOS was succeeded by the ADOS-G with noted improvements. More recently, the ADOS-2 was introduced to further increase its diagnostic accuracy. Studies examining the validity of the ADOS have produced mixed findings, and pooled relationship trends between the algorithm versions are yet to be analyzed. The current review seeks to compare the relative merits of the ADOS-G and ADOS-2 algorithms, Modules 1-3. Eight studies met inclusion criteria for the review, and six were selected for paired comparisons of the sensitivity and specificity of the ADOS. Results indicate several contradictory findings, underscoring the importance of further study.

Online administration of the ADOS for research with adolescents and adults in response to the pandemic

This study evaluates an online ADOS-2 Module 4 administration. Adolescents and adults with (n = 24; 7 females) and without (n = 13; 5 females) a history of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) completed the ADOS-2 Module 4 via videoconference. Parents or caregivers completed the Parent/Caregiver Form of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales and the Achenbach Adult Behavior Checklist. The ADOS-2 was reviewed and scored by five trained clinicians and supervised by a senior clinician with established research reliability. The autistic group's scores differed on ADOS total (Calibrated Severity Score, WPS instrument) and domain scores, KSADS domain scores, and Achenbach T-scores. Inter-rater reliability was "moderate" (κ = 0.732), and percentage item-wise agreement was r = 0.69. The online ADOS-2 showed significant convergence with parent-reported assessments of ASD-relevant symptoms and characteristics, suggesting it was a valid assessment. While any online assessments must be used with caution, results suggest that the approach described here could have sufficient validity and reliability to fill the urgent need to assess and evaluate ASD symptomatology, as one component of a thorough clinical evaluation of ASD-related behaviors. LAY SUMMARY: In this exploratory study, we asked whether it was possible to give the ADOS-2 to adolescents and adults in a completely online way. Results showed that expert clinicians agreed on 69% of ADOS-2 items; also, participants with autism had higher scores on all parts of the ADOS-2. The online ADOS-2 scores had strong and significant relationships with parents' reports of friendship and social skills. While we need more research that tests this method, this way of doing the ADOS-2 online may be useful for clinicians and researchers who have an urgent need to evaluate autism during the pandemic.