Papers 1 - 4

A review of methodological issues in the differential

diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders

in children

Johnny L. Matson *, Marie Nebel-Schwalm, Michael L. Matson

Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, United States

Abstract

The development of standardized tests to assess autism, particularly in young children, is a topic

of considerable interest in the research community. Recent years have seen an exponential growth in

scales for differential diagnosis. Particular emphasis has been placed on defining and better

delineating the symptoms of the disorder relative to other forms of autism spectrum disorder

(ASD) and intellectual disability (ID), and identifying the condition at the earliest possible age. The

general consensus is that scaling methods are the core means of establishing a diagnosis. Thus,

analyzing the research activity in the area for strengths and weaknesses in methodology would appear

to be in order. A critical overview of existing psychometric properties of these tests is presented with

suggestions for future research on the topic.

# 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Methodology; Differential diagnosis; Autism

Differential diagnosis of autism has been at the center of debate and research since it

was first described by Kanner. In one early paper he notes that the primary referral was

because the children were assumed to be ‘‘severely feeble minded’’ (Kanner, 1944). A

considerable amount of research has been published over the ensuing 60 years on the

topic. Autistic children are no longer assumed to always or never to have an intellectual

disability (ID). However, considerable overlap between the two conditions appears to

http://ees.elsevier.com/RASD/default.asp

Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 1 (2007) 38–54

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 225 388 4104; fax: +1 225 388 4125.

E-mail address: [email protected] (J.L. Matson).

1750-9467/$ – see front matter # 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2006.07.004

exist (La Malfa, Lassi, Bertelli, Salvini, & Placidi, 2004). Furthermore, some debate about

which symptoms are core features of one conditions versus the other and where they

overlap is still occurring (Matson & Minshawi, 2006).

It is generally argued that Asperger’s syndrome and autism intersect on the other end

of the I.Q. continuum (Volkmar & Klin, 1998). However, after the original description of

the condition by Asperger in 1944, little attention was paid to this potential diagnosis

until popularized by Wing (1981). She argued that Asperger’s syndrome was not a

separate condition at all, but rather a variant of autism. The person with Asperger’s

evinces a high degree of intellectual ability versus being ID or borderline ID as was the

situation with most identified cases of autism. Asperger’s syndrome, later seen as a

separate autism spectrum disorder (ASD), was placed in DSM-IV as a distinct condition.

Now the popular view of Asperger’s syndrome, once again, appears to favor the idea that

it is a variant of autism. This view may be reflected in updates of ICD and DSM (Mayes

& Calhoun, 2004).

Given the many opinions and rapid changes in notions about how best to label various

disorders relative to core symptoms of autism, it is no wonder that a number of scaling

methods have been developed to help clarify these major controversies in definition and

diagnosis. Perhaps equally challenging has been the recent efforts to diagnose children

with autism under the age of two. The primary reason for these efforts has been the belief

that treatment programs based on applied behavior analysis can dramatically help afflicted

children, and that the earliest possible recognition of those at risk will result in the best long

term treatment results. Early intervention has proven successful in remediating many

symptoms of autism and has allowed many of these children to be integrated into regular

same age classroom (Matson, Benavidez, Compton, Paclawskyj, & Baglio, 1996; Smith,

1999).

Autism versus other autism spectrum disorders has proven to be the fulcrum for

differential diagnosis research to date. PDD-NOS, autism, and Asperger’s syndrome are

much more frequently occurring than Rett’s syndrome and Childhood Degenerative

Disorder and have many more symptoms in common than the latter two conditions. For

these and other reasons, differential diagnosis in autism has primarily involved teasing

out the diagnostic patterns of the three former conditions. Because autism has received

the majority of the attention in symptom description and scale development, PDD-NOS

and Asperger’s syndrome are often defined largely by the fact that they are not autism.

In fact, some authors refer to Asperger’s syndrome as ‘‘high functioning autism’’

(Mayes & Calhoun, 2004). Given this state of affair, while the present review will be

limited to autism, nonetheless this review has implications for the differential diagnosis

of PDD-NOS and Asperger’s syndrome. Since scaling methods have been the primary

means of defining these syndromes, the review will be limited to an overview of these

measures in the context of diagnostic schema. At present, the test literature for the other

ASDs have similar, and in fact, more limitations than for autism assessment methods.

The state of the state in autism test development therefore has value not only for this

syndrome but for the entire ASD area. Differential diagnosis of autism is more advanced

than for other ASDs and thus sets a model for research with other ASDs, and by defining

the features of autism, PDD-NOS, and Asperger’s syndrome are at least partially defined

as well.

J.L. Matson et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 1 (2007) 38–54 39

1. Test characteristics

The general value of scales for diagnosing autism can be broken down into several

categories. Some methodological questions to be considered are as follows. First, is the test

reliable? Various approaches can be used to establish this point. Test-retest reliability for

example is two administrations of the same test with the typical interval being 2–3 weeks.

This period is long enough to insure that the informant does not remember his/her answers

but short enough so that the symptom patterns will probably not have changed very much.

For items measuring one construct, split-half and inter-item reliability can be beneficial.

Similarly, inter-rater reliability, which has become a hallmark of applied behavior analysis,

is a useful means to establish that independent raters observe and score behavior in a

similar manner.

A second major methodological concern is validity. Several types of validity should be

included. Face validity, that is whether the test appears to be measuring autism based on a

cursory review of the items, is essential. Clinicians, parents, teachers, and other concerned

adults are unlikely to accept a scale that does not meet this criterion. Another form of

validity involves differential diagnosis of the disorders (divergent validity). Can the

measure successfully distinguish between symptoms of autism as compared to PDD-NOS,

intellectual disability, phobias, and other childhood conditions? The ability of a scale to

correctly identify children with autism at very young ages and establish how a symptom

pattern will look in later life (predictive validity), is of considerable importance. Finally,

does an autism scale measure autism? The gold standard or anchor point would appear to

be DSM-IV-TR or ICD-10 criteria, along with observation, interview, and where applicable

‘‘team process’’ data. A licensed clinical psychologist or board certified psychiatrist would

take this information into account and render a diagnosis.

A third point is perhaps an even more pragmatic one. Are professionals and parents

willing to use the test? Several issues go into a decision of this sort. For example, are the

directions clear and can the administration of the measure be taught in a brief amount of

time, such as 30 min or less? Is the measure intrusive and does it require a considerable

amount of specialized testing space? The experimental functional analysis technology has

particular problems in this regard (Matson & Minshawi, in press). Can the test be scored

easily and rapidly? And, can all of these points be met while still rendering a valid

diagnosis? This list of characteristics presents a tall order for the test developer. However,

most settings for differential diagnosis are resource and experienced professional poor.

These factors create a challenge and an opportunity for those who are interested in

enhancing diagnostic accuracy for autism.

2. Early diagnosis

Until very recently, conventional thinking among researchers and clinicians was that the

‘‘clinical gestalt’’ of core symptoms that comprises autism could not be adequately

recognized to make a reliable and valid diagnosis until 6–10 years of age (Gillberg, Nordin,

& Ehlers, 1996). It has also been conventional thinking that no method could accurately

diagnose the condition in children 6–12 months of age. It has only been in recent years that

J.L. Matson et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 1 (2007) 38–5440

investigators have argued that younger and younger children with autism could be

diagnosed at all. The primary reason for this rush to diagnosis is another generally accepted

convention that the earlier the diagnosis, the greater the long-term benefits later on in

childhood, adolescence, and adulthood (Matson, Laud, & Matson, 2004a, 2004b; Rogers,

1998; Smith, Groen, & Wynn, 2000; Whiteford, 2000). While intuitively this point might

appear valid, no long-term follow-up studies are available (e.g., 3–20 years), or will be

available for some time. Additionally, while intensive early intervention programs are

promising in the short term, many methodological shortcomings exist such as lack of

matched controls and outcome measures of core symptoms of autism. Thus, while data are

quite promising at present, they are far from conclusive (Matson, in press).

The primary method of making a differential diagnosis is the use of a standardized

measure of autism. This approach also holds for children as young as 18 months. The

CHAT and STAT are two scaling instruments that have been designed specifically to make a

diagnosis in children at 1.5–2 years of age (Baron-Cohen et al., 2000; Stone, Coonrad, &

Ousley, 2000). Methodologically, one approach is to differentially diagnose children with

ASD as compared to children without ASDs, and to diagnose between ASD conditions.

From a practical standpoint, this will be autism and PDD-NOS because Asperger’s

syndrome does not seem to be diagnosable at these young ages and Childhood

Disintegrative Disorder and Rett’s syndrome are very rare. A second dimension is to

diagnose the children and then follow them up later to determine if they still have the same

diagnosis (predictive validity). Stone et al. (1999) tested 65 children under the age of 3 with

a mean of 31.4 months. Twenty-five children were diagnosed as having autism and 12

children were diagnosed as having PDD-NOS based on the DSM-IV and the Childhood

Autism Rating Scale (CARS) criteria. The general conclusion was that interrater diagnosis

was good as was stability of diagnosis over time if ASD versus autism or PDD-NOS criteria

were employed.

In a more recent study, Charman et al. (2005) diagnosed 26 children with autism at age 2

with the ADI-R and then followed them up at age 3 and 7. They concluded that

standardized assessments used at age 2 did not predict outcome at age 7, but assessments at

age 3 were predictive. These studies are among the few, and certainly among the best, to

establish the reliability and validity of early diagnosis. While the children in the study by

Stone et al. (1999) were 2, most were quite close to being 3 years of age. Also, the five-year

follow-up that was employed is a much more rigorous criterion versus a one year follow-

up. Thus, Charman et al. (2005) conclusion that predictive validity is best when the child is

at least 3 years old appears to be the best bet as of this writing. Milder symptoms which are

likely in PDD-NOS may require the child to be a good deal older, since researchers have

noted that milder symptoms are more difficult to identify in younger children.

Going back some years and included in the DSM is the statement that autism has an

onset before 30 months of age (Short & Schopler, 1988). However, as noted here, as of this

writing, there is controversy as to whether an accurate diagnosis of autism can be made

prior to age three, particularly if the symptom profile is not of the most extreme form

(Baron-Cohen et al., 1996; Charman et al., 2005). In fact, the more recent study from this

group seems to be less optimistic about accurate diagnosis in children under the age of

three. These data, then, put the clinician in a rather odd bind. Criteria in various major

classification systems (e.g., DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) state

J.L. Matson et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 1 (2007) 38–54 41

that a diagnosis should be made before age 3, yet the science suggests that such a

proposition is at best risky and at worst, not possible at present. From a conceptual/

methodological perspective then, what are the theories and methods of differential

diagnosis and what is their current status?

2.1. Diagnostic classification systems versus empirical subtyping

The diagnosis of autism eventually comes down to symptom definition of the disorder.

Two primary methods with some but not total overlap are commonly cited. These approaches

include diagnostic systems and empirically derived subtyping. In the first method, experts are

consulted and committees formed to determine what symptoms describe the disorder. In the

latter case, tests specifically designed to measure autism are administered to a subset of this

population. Based on the data obtained and the subsequent derived symptom clusters,

differential diagnoses are established as descriptors of the condition.

Two diagnostic classification systems are usually referenced, the Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association,

1994; Kabot, Masi, & Segal, 2003) and the ICD-10 (Kurita, Osada, & Miyake, 2004). At

present, these two systems have definitions of autism that are similar, adding a degree of

continuity into the picture with respect to definition. In addition to these methods a newer,

but far less known system, the Diagnostic is the DC-0-3, has appeared (Zero to Three,

1994). This latter method has gained very little traction in the published literature to date.

As noted earlier, attempts to differentially diagnosing autism at ages younger than three

have been mixed (Charman et al., 2005). Additionally, the DC-0-3 is a new system,

relatively speaking, and will have a hard time competing with the two existing models.

DSM and ICD have large professional organizations that sponsor them and a large

momentum from being in place for many years. Also, these system’s sponsors have taken

the position that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder while the DC-0-3 emphasizes the

environment, particularly with respect to deprivation of stimulation, to a much greater

degree (Zero to Three, 1994). The DC-0-3 is modeled after DSM in that an axis approach is

used. The five axes are: (1) primary diagnosis (e.g., sleep disorders, adjustment disorders,

disorders of relating and communicating including multisystem developmental disorders

and pervasive developmental disorders); (2) relationship disorder classification (e.g.,

overinvolved, underinvolved, abuse); (3) medical and developmental disorders and

conditions; (4) psychosocial stressors; and (5) functional emotional developmental level.

The developers emphasize the need for multiple assessments over time and in different

contexts which is at variance with DSM and ICD. They do follow the other two systems in

that it is used not only for classification, but for assessment and clinical case formulation.

We believe this is not the most parsimonious model despite the commonality with which

such methods are used in everyday practice. Similarly, others have noted that before these

classification schemes can be codified, they must be confirmed via extensive empirical

study and clinical use (Rutter, 1978). Rather, normed data based assessment scales,

published in peer reviewed journals, should constitute the core of any diagnosis. The goal

should be a scientific, data-driven approach to differential diagnosis and should influence

the diagnostic criteria in these systems. DSM and ICD are following this approach to a

large degree.

J.L. Matson et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 1 (2007) 38–5442

3. Assessment instruments

Authors of assessment instruments almost uniformly suggest that these tests be used in

conjunction with clinical observations, DSM or ICD criteria, team processes and other

decision making criteria in a cumulative fashion. Despite this, scales are used as the central

feature for group selection and differentiation in assessment research with young autistic

children. Furthermore, a goal of many of these studies is expressly the differential

diagnosis of autism from other ASDs, other common childhood problems, and ID.

Therefore, the data do not always match the argument for more broad-based clinical

diagnostic methods. Furthermore, most pediatricians, general practitioners, teachers,

social workers, clinical psychologists, and psychiatrists who are in practice on the ‘‘front-

line’’, are not familiar with the clinical presentation of autism in children. Therefore, these

scales may represent not only a diagnostic tool, but the primary means of educating

professionals about the symptoms that make up the disorder. Even more than in the

research being conducted, where people very knowledgeable of autism are guiding the

evaluation process, the ‘‘typical’’ clinician is likely to rely very heavily, if not exclusively,

on these assessment instrument data. Whether this is optimal is certainly debatable.

However, it is a pragmatic fact of clinical practice which is unlikely to go away soon.

A second observation is that the popular media in the form of newspapers, press

releases, TV, the internet and so on, present a bewildering and even shocking amount of

misinformation and bad advice. From a diagnostic standpoint, some of the more egregious

information include suggesting that parents with no formal training diagnose their child by

using a hastily put together checklist with no published psychometric data. Additionally,

well-meaning advocates will list various diagnostic systems, some with published

reliability and validity data, and others with no empirical support, and no guidance as to

which scales are methodologically sound. Not all tests have been created equal.

Table 1 is an overview of autism scales that have published psychometric data. Tests

which authors state were designed to establish educational goals or assess treatment

outcome were not included given the focus on diagnosis. Similarly, studies with

questionable methodology were excluded (e.g., tests were sent to large numbers of

clinicians who were asked to fill them out and return them versus directly interviewing an

informant or observing a child). We located 21 scales within these parameters. Many other

scales, some in wide use, do not meet these very minimal criteria. We would argue that any

instrument used for diagnosing autism in children should come from this list, unless there is

a measure with good published psychometrics (e.g., reliability and validity) that we have

missed. And, even within this list many of the scales are outdated or have minimal

psychometric support. Even where studies report over several hundred cases, most are

children without ASD. Thus, differentiating ASD from normals is quite different than

establishing psychometrics within items, and subdomains/diagnoses of the scale itself.

Scales using large numbers of ASD children in their psychometric studies are quite

important yet rare.

The ADI-R is considered to be the gold standard for assessment scales used in the

diagnosis of autism by many at this time (Cohen, 2003; Constantino et al., 2003). It has a

broader age range of norms, more published psychometric data, and is a best fit with DSM

and ICD criteria relative to other scales. The authors also emphasize the open-ended

J.L. Matson et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 1 (2007) 38–54 43

response method versus yes–no or Likert answers. Having said this, the scale also has a

number of shortcomings with respect to psychometrics. Table 2 presents the

methodological criteria reviewed earlier in the paper and also lists other relevant

information for methodology studies of childhood autism scales. The biggest shortcoming

with this and other measures of autism is the general lack of adequate norms. Cut-off scores

are generally based on how well diagnoses compare to DSM, ICD, or criteria established in

existing scales. These data present reliability and differential diagnostic validity at some

level. Specifically, all reported studies had face validity. However, without the large group

studies to psychometrically define the disorder, it is quite possible that the experts are in

agreement but may be at least partially in error with respect to diagnostic criteria. We direct

the reader to recent disagreements over diagnostic criteria in various revisions of the DSM

with respect to hyperactivity and the debate over whether Asperger’s is a separate

syndrome or a subset of autism. We argue that carefully constructed empirical studies

should be used to answer these questions to the extent possible versus opinions or politics

which has often entered into DSM and ICD manuals. Another important methodological

approach would be to use a best fit model of diagnostic scales to scaling methods using a

J.L. Matson et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 1 (2007) 38–5444

Table 1

A list of scales with published psychometric data, developed for the differential diagnosis of autism and in some

cases other ASDs

1 Developmental Dimensional

and Diagnostic Interview

3di Skuse et al. (2004)

2 Autism Behavior Checklist ABC Krug, Arick, and Almond (1980)

3 Autism Diagnostic Interview ADI LeCouteur et al. (1989)

4 Autism Diagnostic Interview- Revised ADI-R Lord, Rutter, and Le Couteur (1994)

5 Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule ADOS Lord et al. (1989)

6 Autism Diagnostic Observation

Schedule- Generic

ADOS-G Lord et al. (2000)

7 Autism Spectrum Disorders-Diagnosis ASD-D Matson, Terlonge, and Gonzalez (2006)

8 Behavior Function Inventory BFI Adrien et al. (2001)

9 Behavior Observation Scale BOS Freeman and Schroth (1984)

10 Childhood Autism Rating Scale CARS Schopler, Reichler, DeVellis,

and Daly (1980)

11 Checklist for Autism in Young Children CAYC Mayes and Calhoun (1999)

12 Checklist for Autism in Toddlers CHAT Baron-Cohen et al. (2000)

13 Diagnostic Interview for Social and

Communication Disorders

DISCO Wing, Leekam, Libby, Gould,

and Larcombe (2002)

14 Diagnostic Checklist, Form E2 E2-DC Rimland (1971)

15 Gilliam Autism Rating Scale GARS Gilliam (1995)

16 Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers M-CHAT Robins, Fein, Barton, and Green (2001)

17 Pervasive Developmental Disorders

Behavior Inventory

PDDBI Cohen, Schmidt-Lackner, Romanczyk,

and Sudhalter (2003)

18 Pervasive Developmental Disorders in

Mentally Retarded Persons

PDD-MRS Kraijer (1997)

19 Pervasive Developmental Disorders

Rating Scale

PDDRS Eaves, Campbell, and Chambers (2000)

20 Pre-Linguistic Autism Diagnosis

Observation Schedule

PL-ADOS DiLavore, Lord, and Rutter (1995)

21 Screening Test for Autism in Two-year-olds STAT Stone et al. (2000)

J .L

. M

a tso

n e t

a l./

R e se

a rc

h in

A u

tism S

p e c tru

m D

iso rd

e rs

1 (2

0 0

7 )

3 8

– 5

4 4

5 Table 2

A representative list of ASD diagnostic studies, the number, ages, and diagnoses of children tested

Author(s) and year Children Test name Factor

analysis

Reliability Validity

No. Age range Sample

character-istics

Test-

retest

Inter-

rater

Internal consistency Diff. diag. Criterion-related Match to

DSM or ICD Alpha

coefficient

Split-

half

Con-

current

Prediction

Skuse et al. (2004) 149 3–16 years ASD, non-ASD 3di X X X X X

Krug et al., 1980 1111 18 months–

35 years

Autism, ID, controls ABC X X X X

Volkmar et al. (1988) 157 19 years Autism, clinical

controls

ABC X X X X X X

Wadden, Bryson, and

Rodgers (1991)

123 6–15 years Autism, learning

diabilities, ID

ABC X X X

Szatmari, Archer, Fisman,

and Streiner (1994)

83 4–6 years PDD ABC X

Goodman and

Minne (1995)

17 4–11 years Blind or blind

with PDD

ABC X X X

Miranda-Linne and

Melin (1997)

383 5–22 years ASD ABC X

De Bildt et al. (2003) 1059 4–18 years ID, PDD ABC,

PDD-MRS

X X X

Eaves et al. (2000) 139 Mean

8.5 years

Autistim, PDD, ID ABC, PDDRS X X X

LeCouteur et al. (1989) 47 6–22 years Autism, ID ADI X X X

Yirmiya, Sigman,

and Freeman (1994)

18 9–16 years Autism, other

dev. disorders

ADI, ABC X X X

Lord et al. (1994) 50 3–5 years Autism, ID ADI-R X X X X

Cox et al. (1999) 17173 20 month

then 3.5 years

Autism, PDD,

language disorder

ADI-R X X X

Mildenberger, Sitter,

Noterdaeme, and

Amorosa (2001)

27 Mean 9 years Autism, receptive

language disorder

ADI-R X X

Moore and

Goodson (2003)

20 2.5 then

4.5 years

At risk for PDD ADI-R X X X

Cuccaro et al. (2003) 207 3–21 years Autism ADI-R X X

Charman et al. (2005) 26 Ages 2, 3,

and 7

Autism ADI-R X X

Tadevosyan-Leyfer

et al. (2003)

292 2–47 years ASDs ADI-R, ADI X

J .L

. M

a tso

n e t

a l./

R e se

a rc

h in

A u

tism S

p e c tru

m D

iso rd

e rs

1 (2

0 0

7 )

3 8

– 5

4 4

6 Table 2 (Continued )

Author(s) and year Children Test name Factor

analysis

Reliability Validity

No. Age range Sample

character-istics

Test-

retest

Inter-

rater

Internal consistency Diff. diag. Criterion-related Match to

DSM or ICD Alpha

coefficient

Split-

half

Con-

current

Prediction

Bishop and

Norbury (2002)

74 6–9 years ASD, language

impairment

ADI-R,

ADOS-G,

SCQ

X

Saemunden, Magnusson,

Smari, and

Sigurdardottir (2003)

54 2–9.5 years At risk for ASD ADI-R, CARS X X

Lord et al. (1989) 120 6–18 years Autism, ID, normals ADOS X X X X X

Noterdaeme, Sitter,

Mildenberger, and

Amorosa (2000)

49 7–12 years Autism, language

disorders

ADOS X X

Lord et al. (2000) 223 4–21 years Autism, PDD-NOS,

non-spectrum

diagnoses

ADOS-G X X X X X X

Adrien et al. (2001) 131 2–12 years Autism,

PDD-NOS, ID

BFI X X X

Freeman et al. (1981) 114 2.5–5 years Autism, normal, ID BOS X X

Freeman and

Schroth (1984)

118 2–6 years Autism, normal, ID BOS X X X

Schopler et al. (1980) 537 2–10 years Autism, controls CARS X X X

Garfin, McGallon,

and Cox (1988)

84 6–22 years Autism CARS X X X

Mesibov, Schopler,

Schaffer, and

Michal (1989)

89 10 then 13 Autism, controls CARS X X

Van Bourgondien,

Marcus, and

Schopler (1992)

138 2–34 years Autism, PDD CARS X X X

DiLalla and

Rogers (1994)

69 2–6 years Autism, PDD-

NOS, non-PDD

CARS X X X X X

Kanai et al. (2004) 74 2–22 years Autism and high-

functioning autism

CARS-TV X X

Mayes and

Calhoun (2004)

157 1.5–14 years Autism, Asperger’s CAYC X X

Baron-Cohen, Allen,

and Gillberg (1992)

91 18 months

then 30 months

At risk for PDD &

random sample

CHAT X X

J .L

. M

a tso

n e t

a l./

R e se

a rc

h in

A u

tism S

p e c tru

m D

iso rd

e rs

1 (2

0 0

7 )

3 8

– 5

4 4

7 Baron-Cohen

et al. (1996)

16000 18 months

then 3.5 years

General population CHAT X X

Wing et al. (2002) 82 3–11 years ASD, LD, language

disorder, controls

DISCO X

Rimland (1971) 2218 Not

available

Psychosis

or autism

E2-DC X

Hagerman, Jackson,

Levitas, and

Braden (1986)

50 2.5 years Fragile X

syndrome

E2-DC,

ABC

X X

South et al. (2002) 119 3–10 years Autism GARS X

Robins et al. (2001) 1293 18 months–

2.5 years

ASD, at risk

for ASD,

controls

M-CHAT X X X X

Cohen (2003) 84 3–6 years ASD PDDBI X X

Cohen et al. (2003) 311 1–17 years ASD PDDBI X X X X

DiLavore et al. (1995) 83 1–5.5 years Autism, DD,

normals

PL-ADOS X X

Stone et al. (1999) 65 2 then 3 years ASDs PL-ADOS,

CARS

X X X X

Stone et al. (2000) 73 2–3 years Autism, other

dev. disorders

STAT X X

Stone, Coonrod,

Turner, and

Pozdol (2004)

156 2–3 years Autism,

dev. delay,

language

impairment

STAT X X X X X

Also included are the psychometric characteristics of the tests evaluated. 3di = Developmental, Dimensional, and Diagnostic Interview, ABC = Autism Behavior Checklist, ADI = Autism Diagnostic Interview,

ADI-R = Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised, ADOS = Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, ADOS-G = Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Generic, ASD = Autism Spectrum Disorders,

BFI = Behavior Function Inventory, BOS = Behavior Observation Scale, CARS = Childhood Autism Rating Scale, CARS-TV = Childhood Autism Rating Scale- Tokyo Version, CAYC = Checklist for Autism

in Young Children, CHAT = Checklist for Autism in Toddlers, DD = Developmental Disorders, DISCO = Diagnostic Interview for Social and Communication Disorders, E2-DC = Form E2- Diagnostic

Checklist for Behaviorally Disturbed Children, GARS = Gilliam Autism Rating Scale, ID = Intellectual Disabilities, LD = Learning Disabilities, M-CHAT = Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers,

PDD = Pervasive Developmental Disorder, PDDBI = Pervasive Developmental Disorder Behavior Inventory, PDD-MRS = Pervasive Developmental Disorder in Mentally Retarded Persons, PDD-RS = Per-

vasive Developmental Disorders Rating Scale, PL-ADOS = Pre-Linguistic Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, SCQ = Social Communication Questionnaire, STAT = Screening Tool for Autism in two-

year-olds.

multitrait-multimethod approach versus an a priori ‘‘gold standard’’ (Campbell & Fiske,

1959).

Other measures with multiple studies published on their psychometrics include the

CHAT, ABC, CARS, and the ADOS/PL-ADOS/ADOS-G. The remainder of the scales

generally have one or two published psychometric studies describing their methodological

properties. Some measures received initial attention in past years but largely due to the

failure to continue the development of their psychometrics, have fallen from favor. Other

papers have sometimes used one of these autism measures as an outcome variable for

treatment. These studies were not included because they did not deal with the

establishment of test psychometrics. Table 3 identifies the type of measure, administrator

qualifications, and the average administration time.

3.1. Practical considerations

Various advantages and disadvantages have been put forward by scale developers. Some

of these distinctions are interesting but do not appear to be supported by available data. For

example, the fact that a test involves a detailed interview versus yes–no answers may

generate more, or more specific information. However, one cannot conclude at this time

that such information results in a more accurate diagnosis. The studies that address this

hypothesis have not been conducted. A second, related issue is the distinction made that

some instruments are for research purposes while others are for clinical use. Absent an

J.L. Matson et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 1 (2007) 38–5448

Table 3

Administration time for measures of autism spectrum disorders

Test name Type of measure Administrator qualifications Average administration time

1 3di Structured interview Trained examiner 45–90 min

2 ABC Rating scale Parent Under 20 min

3 ADI Interview Trained examiner 2–3 h

4 ADI-R Interview Trained examiner 1–3 h

5 ADOS Observation Trained examiner 20–45 min

6 ADOS-G Observation Trained examiner 30–45 min

7 ASD-D Rating scale Trained Examiner/Parent 30–45 min

8 BFI Rating scale Clinician 20–45 min

9 BOS Observation Trained examiner 30 min observations

per day over 3 days

10 CARS Rating scale Trained examiner 30 min

11 CAYC Interview Trained examiner 20–30 min

12 CHAT Rating scale Parent, teacher 5–15 min

13 DISCO Interview Clinician 2–4 h

14 E2-DC Rating scale Parent Not available

15 GARS Rating scale Parent, teacher 20 min

16 M-CHAT Rating scale Parent 5–10 min

17 PDDBI Rating scale Parent, teacher 45 min

18 PDD-MRS Rating scale Clinician, teachers 15 min

19 PDDRS Rating scale Parent, teacher 20 min

20 PL-ADOS Rating scale Trained examiner 30 min

21 STAT Rating scale Trained examiner Under 20 min

operational definition and empirical verification of such a distinction, which has not

occurred, this point at best awaits further verification, or at worst does not exist. Third, most

scale developers suggest that these tests should not be used for diagnosis, despite the fact

that they have largely been developed for that purpose. These tests are the most systematic,

reliable and valid means currently available in the child autism diagnostic literature. Thus,

we argue that these scales should be used to make diagnoses, unless or until more

scientifically sound means of making such diagnoses become available. The sheer volume

of scales developed to diagnose autism in children would seem to suggest at least tacit

agreement among researcher-clinicians that this is the most viable approach to differential

diagnosis.

Some measures emphasize the fact that they are very detailed. We would argue that

detail equals time. From a pragmatic perspective, our view is that a major priority should be

to develop the balance between obtaining relevant information to make a diagnosis, while

parsing out items that do not enhance that goal. More detailed assessment information that

would assist in establishing target behaviors for intervention, variables maintaining

problem behaviors, skill deficits that could be identified for education and development,

and means of assessing treatment outcome are all worthy but different goals than

differential diagnosis. These issues might, for efficiency and clarity be addressed best in

separate evaluation packets.

Some additional practical issues may limit the use of particular scales. For example,

the ADI-R and variations of the ADOS which are very good scales in many ways require

attendance at a workshop or purchasing and viewing lengthy training videotapes. Most

clinicians are not going to do that. Additionally, with few exceptions, time and resources

are not available outside of university clinics for assessment and scoring of major

diagnostic tests that take over an hour to administer. Some test developers have gone to

computerized scoring to shorten the amount of time involved. However, it still takes time

to enter raw data in the proper format. We are of the opinion that a better method is a

brief, easy to score instrument that can be done by hand. This approach provides a

valuable opportunity for the clinician to review and reflect on items which should assist

in diagnosis and case formulation and adds little additional time to a computerized data

entry method.

4. Holes in the literature

Given that differential diagnostic research is only several decades old, it should not be

surprising that several areas of development are still in need of exploration. Furthermore,

while authors routinely note in the literature that scales alone should not be used for

differential diagnosis of autism, there is no doubt that they are and should be the central

feature in this process. They are the only means of differential diagnosis with scientific

support at present. If and when other data-based methods arrive on the scene (e.g.,

genetic measures) they may partially supplant or augment these paper and pencil

methods. We say this because of the value of genetic markers in early identification.

However, because of the binary nature of such diagnoses and the failure to account for

environmental factors, scales are likely to be of considerable value in identifying

J.L. Matson et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 1 (2007) 38–54 49

severity and type of symptom complexes regardless of success with genetic tests. Down

syndrome may be a model in that while a clear genetic marker exists, ID and adaptive

behavior measures are still of considerable value since these persons can vary markedly

along the I.Q. continuum.

At present there is a need for a number of additional developments which could greatly

enhance the field. A large normative sample, collected in various settings and geographic

areas, with a large number of PDD-NOS, autistic and Asperger syndrome/autistic children

from 3 years to 18 years is needed. At present, correlations with small samples of these

children to DSM or ICD criteria are used. This approach is better than nothing, but the

classification systems have not been adequately studied. Therefore, items are

extrapolations from research and clinical practice, and to some extent the reasoning is

circular. Most studies are correlated to DSM criteria, but what if they are inaccurate? One

could have reliability but no validity. Looking at convergent and discriminant validity is

one way to address this issue (Cambell & Fiske, 1959).

Psychopathology and ASD have a developmental course. Nowhere would develop-

mental differences be as evident as in the childhood population. Thus, diagnostic

symptoms are likely to vary by age and can only be established via adequate norms. Along

these same lines is the need for cut-off scores. The cut-off may vary with age, some

symptoms might be must have, while other symptoms might be designated as may have.

Social validity criteria could also be used to establish diagnoses of autism by age. Vignettes

presented to parents, students, or others diagnosed by experts as having autism, PDD-NOS,

or normal development would be valuable in obtaining another perspective on how or

whether symptoms appear unusual or out of the ordinary as compared to the general

population. These types of data for same-age peers would be valuable for establishing

critical target symptoms that cause the child to ‘‘stand out’’ as being different, thus

compromising optimal integration in normal settings.

Brief scales that can be used to accurately diagnose autism using the latest empirically

established symptoms and data-based cut-offs would be helpful. Along these same lines,

designing assessments that do not require terminal degrees, but could be reviewed by a

doctoral level clinical psychologist or board certified psychiatrist would be more in line

with clinical practice in most applied settings. Comparisons of doctoral versus masters

level professionals in test administration might be one method of testing this pragmatic

issue.

Specialized methods of autism scaling are emerging, such as efforts to diagnose very

young children. Additionally, some initial efforts to identify challenging behaviors in a

systematic way have appeared in recent scales. Measures of comorbid psychopathology are

needed as well. The field of assessment in ASD has developed rapidly and much has been

learned about differentially diagnosing different types of ASD form each other, from

normals, and from those with ID, particularly in the context of autism. However, the

literature is somewhat scattered and piecemeal at present. As the literature grows more

coherent (hopefully), assessment strategies are likely to emerge. For example, the growing

belief by many that the ADI-R is presently a good place to start when diagnosing autistic

and PDD-NOS children is as near as anything to a consensus view when thinking of autism

diagnosis. The literature is still quite fluid, however, and many new developments are likely

in the next decade.

J.L. Matson et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 1 (2007) 38–5450

References

Adrien, J. L., Roux, S., Courutier, G., Malvy, P., Guerin, P., Debuly, S., et al. (2001). Towards a new functional

assessment of autistic dysfunction in children with developmental disorders: The Behavior Function

Inventory. Autistm, 5, 249–264.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.).

Washington, DC: Author.

Baron-Cohen, S., Allen, J., & Gillberg, C. (1992). Can autism be detected at 18 months? British Journal of

Psychiatry, 161, 839–843.

Baron-Cohen, S., Cox, A., Baird, G., Swettenham, J., Nightingale, N., Morgan, K., et al. (1996). Psychological

markers in the detection of autism in infancy in a large population. British Journal of Psychiatry, 168, 158–

163.

Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Cox, A., Baird, G., Charman, T., Swettenham, J., et al. (2000). The early

identification of autism: The Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (CHAT). Journal of the Royal Society of

Medicine, 93, 521–525.

Bishop, D. U. M., & Norbury, C. F. (2002). Exploring the borderlands of autistic disorder and specific language

impairment: A study using standardized diagnostic instruments. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,

43, 917–929.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod

matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.

Charman, T., Taylor, E., Drew, A., Cockerill, H., Brown, J., & Baird, G. (2005). Outcome at 7 years of children

diagnosed with autism at age 2: Predictive validity of assessment conducted at 2 and 3 years of age and pattern

of symptom change over time. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 500–513.

Cohen, I. L. (2003). Criterion-related validity of the PDD Behavior Inventory. Journal of Autism and Devel-

opmental Disorders, 33, 47–53.

Cohen, I. L., Schmidt-Lackner, S., Romanczyk, R., & Sudhalter, V. (2003). The PDD Behavior Inventory: A rating

scale for assessing response to intervention in children with pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of

Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33, 31–45.

Constantino, J. N., Davis, S. A., Todd, R. D., Schindler, M. K., Gross, M. M., Brophy, S. L., et al. (2003).

Validation of a brief qualitative measure of autistic traits: Comparison of the social responsiveness scale with

the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33, 427–

433.

Cox, A., Klein, K., Charman, T., Baird, G., Baron-Cohen, S., Swettenham, J., et al. (1999). Autism spectrum

disorders at 20 and 42 months of age: Stability of clinical and ADI-R diagnoses. Journal of Child Psychology

and Psychiatry, 40, 719–732.

Cuccaro, M. L., Shao, Y., Grubber, J., Slifer, M., Wolpert, C. M., Donnelly, S. L., et al. (2003). Factor analysis of

restrictive and repetitive behaviors in autism using the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised. Child Psychiatry

and Human Development, 34, 3–17.

De Bildt, A., Sytema, S., Ketelaars, C., Kraijer, D., Volkmar, F., & Minderaa, R. (2003). Measuring pervasive

developmental disorders in children and adolescents with mental retardation: A comparison of two screening

instruments used in a study of the total mentally retarded population from a designated area. Journal of Autism

and Developmental Disorders, 33, 595–605.

DiLavore, P. C., Lord, C., & Rutter, M. (1995). The Pre-linguistic Autism diagnostic observation schedule.

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25, 355–379.

DiLalla, D. L., & Rogers, S. J. (1994). Domains of the childhood Autism Rating Scale: Relevance for diagnosis

and treatment. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 115–128.

Eaves, R. C., Campbell, H. A., & Chambers, D. (2000). Criterion-related and construct validity of the Pervasive

Developmental Disorders Rating Scale and the Autism Behavior Checklist. Psychology in the Schools, 37,

311–321.

Freeman, B. J., & Schroth, P. C. (1984). The development of the Behavioral Observation System (BOS) for autism.

Behavioral Assessment, 6, 177–187.

Freeman, B. J., Ritvo, E. R., Schroth, P. C., Tonick, I., Guthrie, D., & Wake, L. (1981). Behavioral characteristics

of high and low-I.Q. autistic children. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 138, 25–29.

J.L. Matson et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 1 (2007) 38–54 51

Garfin, D. G., McGallon, D., & Cox, R. (1988). Validity and reliability of the Childhood Autism Rating Scale with

autistic adolescents. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 367–378.

Gillberg, C., Nordin, V., & Ehlers, S. (1996). Early detection of autism: Diagnostic instruments for clinicians.

European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 5, 67–74.

Gilliam, J. E. (1995). Gilliam Autism Rating Scales. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Goodman, R., & Minne, C. (1995). Questionnaire screening for comorbid pervasive developmental disorders in

congenitally blind children: A pilot study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25, 195–

203.

Hagerman, R. J., Jackson, A. W., Levitas, B. R., & Braden, M. (1986). An analysis of autism in fifty males with the

fragile x syndrome. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 23, 359–374.

Kabot, S., Masi, W., & Segal, M. (2003). Advances in the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorders.

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 26–33.

Kanai, C., Koyama, T., Kato, S., Miyamoto, Y., Osada, H., & Kurita, H. (2004). Comparison of high-functioning

atypical autism and childhood autism by Childhood Autism Rating Scale-Tokyo Version. Psychiatry and

Clinical Neurosciences, 58, 217–221.

Kanner, L. (1944). Early infantile autism. Journal of Pediatrics, 25, 211–217.

Kraijer, D. (1997). Autism and autistic-like conditions in mental retardation. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Krug, D., Arick, J., & Almond, P. (1980). Behavior checklist for identifying severely handicapped individuals with

high levels of autistic behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 21, 221–229.

Kurita, H., Osada, H., & Miyake, Y. (2004). External validity of childhood disintegrative disorder in comparison

with autism disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 355–362.

La Malfa, G., Lassi, S., Bertelli, M., Salvini, R., & Placidi, G. F. (2004). Autism and intellectual disability: A study

of prevalence on a sample of the Italian population. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 48, 262–267.

LeCouteur, A., Rutter, M., Lord, C., Rios, P., Robertson, S., Holdgrafer, M., et al. (1989). Autistic diagnostic

interview: A semi-structured interview for parents and caregivers of autistic persons. Journal of Autism and

Developmental Disorders, 19, 363–387.

Lord, C., Rutter, M., Goode, S., Heemsbergen, S., Jordon, J., Mawhood, L., et al. (1989). Autism diagnostic

observation schedule: A standardized observation of communicative and social behavior. Journal of Autism

and Developmental Disorders, 19, 185–212.

Lord, C., Rutter, M., & LeCouteur, A. (1994). Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised: A revised version of a

diagnostic interview for caregivers of individuals with possible pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of

Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 659–685.

Lord, C., Risi, S., Lambrecht, L., Cook, E. H., Leventhal, B. L., DiLavore, P. C., et al. (2000). The Autism

Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Generic: A standard measure of social and communication deficits

associated with the spectrum of autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 205–223.

Matson, J. L. Determining treatment outcome in early intervention programs for autism spectrum disorders. A

critical analysis of measurement issues in learning based interventions. Research in Developmental Dis-

abilities, in press

Matson, J. L., & Minshawi, N. F. (2006). Early intervention for autism spectrum disorders: A critical analysis.

Oxford, England: Elsevier Science Inc.

Matson, J. L., & Minshawi, N. F. Functional assessment of challenging behaviors: Toward a strategy for applied

settings. Research in Developmental Disabilities, in press.

Matson, J. L., Benavidez, D. A., Compton, L. S., Paclawskyj, T., & Baglio, C. (1996). Behavioral treatment of

autistic persons: A review of research from 1980 to the present. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 17,

433–465.

Matson, J. L., Laud, R. B., & Matson, M. L. (2004a). Behavior modification for persons with developmental

disabilities: Treatments and supports (Vol. I). Kingston, New York: National Association for the Dually

Diagnosed.

Matson, J. L., Laud, R. B., & Matson, M. L. (2004b). Behavior modification for persons with developmental

disabilities: Treatments and supports (Vol. II). Kingston, New York: National Association for the Dually

Diagnosed.

Matson, J. L., Terlonge, C., & Gonzalez, M. L. (2006). Autism Spectrum Disorders-Diagnosis (ASD-D). Baton

Rouge, LA: Disability Consultants, LLC.

J.L. Matson et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 1 (2007) 38–5452

Mayes, S. D., & Calhoun, S. L. (1999). Symptoms of autism in young children and correspondence with the DSM.

Infants and Young Children, 12, 90–97.

Mayes, S. D., & Calhoun, S. L. (2004). Influence of IQ and age in childhood autism: Lack of support for DSM-IV

Asperger’s disorder. Journal of Autism and Physical Disabilities, 16, 257–272.

Mesibov, G. B., Schopler, E., Schaffer, B., & Michal, N. (1989). Use of the childhood autism rating scale with

autistic adolescents and adults. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28,

538–541.

Mildenberger, K., Sitter, S., Noterdaeme, M., & Amorosa, H. (2001). The use of the ADI-R as a diagnostic tool in

the differential diagnosis of children with infantile autism and children with a receptive language disorder.

European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 10, 248–255.

Miranda-Linne, F. M., & Melin, L. (1997). A comparison of speaking and mute individuals with autism and

autistic-like conditions on the Autism Behavior Checklist. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities,

27, 245–264.

Moore, V., & Goodson, S. (2003). How well does early diagnosis of autism stand the test of time? Follow-up study

of children assessed for autism at age 2 and development of an early diagnostic service. Autism, 7, 47–63.

Noterdaeme, M., Sitter, S., Mildenberger, K., & Amorosa, H. (2000). Diagnostic assessment of communicative

and interactive behaviors in children with autism and receptive language disorders. European Child and

Adolescent Psychiatry, 9, 295–300.

Rimland, B. (1971). The differentiation of childhood psychosis: An analysis for 2218 psychotic children. Journal

of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia, 1, 161–174.

Robins, D. L., Fein, D., Barton, M. L., & Green, J. A. (2001). The modified checklist for autism in toddlers: An

initial study investigating the early detection of autism and pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of

Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 131–144.

Rogers, S. J. (1998). Empirically supported comprehensive treatments for young children with autism. Journal of

Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 168–179.

Rutter, M. (1978). Diagnostic validity in child psychiatry. Advances in Biological Psychiatry, 2, 2–22.

Saemunden, E., Magnusson, P., Smari, J., & Sigurdardottir, S. (2003). Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised and

the Childhood Autism Rating Scale: Convergence and discrepancy in diagnosing autism. Journal of Autism

and Developmental Disorders, 33, 319–328.

Schopler, E., Reichler, R. J., DeVellis, R. F., & Daly, K. (1980). Toward objective classification of childhood

autism: Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 10, 91–

103.

Short, A. B., & Schopler, E. (1988). Factors relating to age of onset in autism. Journal of Autism and

Developmental Disorders, 18, 207–216.

Skuse, D., Warrington, R., Bishop, D., Chowdhury, V., Lau, J., Mandy, W., et al. (2004). The Developmental

Dimensional and Diagnostic Interview (3di): A novel computerized assessment for autism spectrum disorder.

Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 548–558.

Smith, T. (1999). Outcome of early intervention for children with autism. Clinical Psychology: Science and

Practice, 6, 33–49.

Smith, T., Groen, A., & Wynn, J. (2000). Randomized trial of intensive early intervention for children with

pervasive developmental disorder. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 105, 269–285.

South, M., Williams, B. J., McMahon, W. M., Owley, T., Filipek, P. A., Shernoff, E., et al. (2002). Utility of the

Gilliam Autism Rating Scale in research and clinical populations. Journal of Autism and Developmental

Disorders, 32, 593–599.

Stone, W. L., Lee, E. B., Ashford, L., Brissie, J., Hepburn, S. L., Coonrod, E. E., et al. (1999). Can autism

be diagnosed accurately in children under 3 years? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 219–

226.

Stone, W. L., Coonrod, E. E., & Ousley, O. Y. (2000). Brief report: Screening Tool for Autism in Two-year-olds

(STAT): Development and preliminary data. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 607–612.

Stone, W. L., Coonrod, E. E., Turner, L. M., & Pozdol, S. L. (2004). Psychometric properties of the STAT for early

autism screening. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 691–701.

Szatmari, P., Archer, L., Fisman, S., & Streiner, D. L. (1994). Parent and teacher agreement in the assessment of

pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 703–717.

J.L. Matson et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 1 (2007) 38–54 53

Tadevosyan-Leyfer, O., Dowd, M., Mankoski, R., Winklowsky, B., Putnam, S., McGrath, L., et al. (2003). A

principle components analysis of the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised. Journal of the American Academy

of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 864–872.

Van Bourgondien, M. E., Marcus, L. M., & Schopler, E. (1992). Comparison of DSM-III-R and Childhood Autism

Rating Scale diagnosis of autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 22, 493–506.

Volkmar, F. R., & Klin, A. (1998). Asperger syndrome and nonverbal learning disabilities. In E. Schopler, G. B.

Mesibov, & L. J. Kunce (Eds.), Asperger Syndrome or high-functioning autism? (pp. 107–121). New York:

Plenum.

Volkmar, F. R., Cicchetti, D. V., Dykens, E., Sparrow, S. S., Leekman, J. F., & Cohen, D. J. (1988). An evaluation

of the Autism Behavior Checklist. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 81–97.

Wadden, N. P. K., Bryson, S. E., & Rodgers, R. S. (1991). A closer look at the Autism Behavior Checklist:

Discriminant validity and factor structure. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 21, 529–541.

Whiteford, H. (2000). Early intervention programs for children with autism: Conceptual frameworks for

implementation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 70, 82–94.

Wing, L. (1981). Asperger’s syndrome: A clinical account. Psychological Medicine, 11, 115–129.

Wing, L., Leekam, S. R., Libby, S. J., Gould, J., & Larcombe, M. (2002). The Diagnostic Interview for Social and

Communication Disorders: Background inter-rater reliability and clinical use. Journal of Child Psychology

and Psychiatry, 43, 307–325.

Yirmiya, W., Sigman, M., & Freeman, B. J. (1994). Comparison between diagnostic instruments for identifying

high-functioning children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 281–291.

Zero to Three. (1994). Diagnostic classification of mental health and developmental disorders of infancy and early

childhood. Arlington, VA: National Center for Clinical Infant Programs.

J.L. Matson et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 1 (2007) 38–5454