Loading your page…
Research Square
By Crehan E, Whaling K, Jones H and 2 others.
Abstract Purpose: This preregistered retrospective study evaluated diagnostic agreement under shared-information conditions for a structured, neurodiversity-affirming telehealth adult autism assessment protocol mapped to DSM-5-TR criteria.
Ward brings these articles into the same app as your cards and questions. One free account for Ward, Suture, Osler and Prognia.
The sample included 100 adults who primarily communicated through spoken language and was intentionally stratified to include at least 50% Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC; 51% achieved). Evaluations generally included two 90-minute structured interviews across ten DSM-5-TR-mapped domains, criterion-level decision rules, behavioral observation, questionnaires, and collateral information when available. A blinded expert reviewed de-identified assessment materials and independently classified cases as ASD or non-ASD.
Overall agreement was 86.0% (95% CI [77.9%, 91.5%]), with Cohen’s κ = .684 (95% CI [.531, .836]). The point estimate exceeded the preregistered .66 benchmark, although the confidence interval included lower values. ASD classification rates were 68% for original clinicians and 66% for expert review. Positive and negative percent agreement were 90.9% and 76.5%, respectively. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested lower agreement among BIPOC participants, although estimates were imprecise.
Findings provide preliminary evidence that a structured, neurodiversity-affirming telehealth framework can yield concordant ASD/non-ASD classifications under shared-information conditions. Neurodiversity-affirming practice can coexist with structured, criterion-based diagnostic decision-making: affirming clients’ experiences and reducing deficit-based assumptions does not require presuming an autism diagnosis. Because reviewers relied on substantially overlapping information, findings do not establish diagnostic accuracy or criterion validity. Independent prospective validation using separate evaluations and multiple blinded reviewers is needed.
This is a preprint: it has not been peer reviewed yet, and its findings may change.
Published in Research Square (preprint). The abstract is shown as published and remains the work of its authors; read the full article at the source.
Prognia lists this article for reference and education. It is not medical advice. Always read the original and follow current guidelines and local protocols before acting on it.
