Post published on Twitter/X on 3 Apr 2023 10:27

Abstract

Development of standardized diagnostic instruments has facilitated the systematic characterization of individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) in clinical and research settings. However, overemphasis on scores from specific instruments has significantly detracted from the original purpose of these tools. Rather than provide a definitive “answer,” or even a confirmation of diagnosis, standardized diagnostic instruments were designed to aid clinicians in the process of gathering information about social communication, play, and repetitive and sensory behaviors relevant to diagnosis and treatment planning. Importantly, many autism diagnostic instruments are not validated for certain patient populations, including those with severe vision, hearing, motor, and/or cognitive impairments, and they cannot be administered via a translator. In addition, certain circumstances, such as the need to wear personal protective equipment (PPE), or behavioral factors (e.g., selective mutism) may interfere with standardized administration or scoring procedures, rendering scores invalid. Thus, understanding the uses and limitations of specific tools within specific clinical or research populations, as well as similarities or differences between these populations and the instrument validation samples, is paramount. Accordingly, payers and other systems must not mandate the use of specific tools in cases when their use would be inappropriate. To ensure equitable access to appropriate assessment and treatment services, it is imperative that diagnosticians be trained in best practice methods for the assessment of autism, including if, how, and when to appropriately employ standardized diagnostic instruments.