Abstract
The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, Second Edition (ADOS-2) and the Autism Diagnostic Interview, Revised (ADI-R) have high accuracy as diagnostic instruments in research settings, while evidence of accuracy in clinical settings is less robust. This meta-analysis focused on efficacy of these measures in research versus clinical settings. Articles (n = 22) were analyzed using a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics (HSROC) model. ADOS-2 performance was stronger than the ADI-R. ADOS-2 sensitivity and specificity ranged from .89-.92 and .81-.85, respectively. ADOS-2 accuracy in research compared with clinical settings was mixed. ADI-R sensitivity and specificity were .75 and .82, respectively, with higher specificity in research samples (Research = .85, Clinical = .72). A small number of clinical studies were identified, indicating ongoing need for investigation outside research settings.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
