首页> 外文期刊>Journal of autism and developmental disorders >Brief report: Comparability of DSM-IV and DSM-5 ASD research samples
【24h】

Brief report: Comparability of DSM-IV and DSM-5 ASD research samples

机译:简要报告:DSM-IV和DSM-5 ASD研究样品的可比性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

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.
机译:有人批评ASD诊断和统计手册(DSM-5)的标准过于严格,特别是对于具有较易认知能力的个人。但是,尚不清楚通过标准化诊断评估被认为有资格进行研究的高功能个人是否符合DSM-5标准。这项研究调查了DSM-5对498名具有ASD研究诊断的高功能参与者的诊断状态的影响。满足所有DSM-5要求的参与者百分比因自闭症诊断观察时间表(ADOS; 33%)与自闭症诊断访谈修订版(ADI-R; 83%)的数据而有显着差异,突出了诊断方法学的影响记录DSM-5症状的能力。利用ADOS / ADI-R的组合数据,有93%的参与者符合DSM-5标准,这表明DSM-IV和DSM-5研究样品之间的连续性可能与这些仪器组合在一起。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号