ABSTRACT
The Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (M-CHAT) was used to screen younger (16-23 months) versus older (24-30 months) high- and low-risk toddlers. Refusal rates for follow-up interview showed no group differences, but parents of younger/low-risk children were more likely to refuse evaluation than parents of high-risk children. PPP for an ASD diagnosis was: younger/high-risk 0.79, older/high-risk 0.74, younger/low-risk 0.28, and older/low-risk 0.61, with PPP differing by age within the low-risk group. Most of the children in all groups, however, were diagnosed with a developmental disorder. Symptom severity generally did not differ among groups. Cognitive and adaptive measures showed minimal group differences. Therefore, older and younger toddlers had similar symptomatology and developmental delays; PPP for ASD is better at 24 than 18 months for low-risk children; however, these children are still highly likely to show a developmental disorder. Clinical decision making should balance early identification against the lower specificity of M-CHAT screening for the younger/low-risk group.
Subject(s)
Autistic Disorder/diagnosis , Autistic Disorder/epidemiology , Mass Screening/methods , Surveys and Questionnaires , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Male , Observer VariationABSTRACT
Speech and prosody-voice profiles for 15 male speakers with High-Functioning Autism (HFA) and 15 male speakers with Asperger syndrome (AS) were compared to one another and to profiles for 53 typically developing male speakers in the same 10- to 50-years age range. Compared to the typically developing speakers, significantly more participants in both the HFA and AS groups had residual articulation distortion errors, uncodable utterances due to discourse constraints, and utterances coded as inappropriate in the domains of phrasing, stress, and resonance. Speakers with AS were significantly more voluble than speakers with HFA, but otherwise there were few statistically significant differences between the two groups of speakers with pervasive developmental disorders. Discussion focuses on perceptual-motor and social sources of differences in the prosody-voice findings for individuals with Pervasive Developmental Disorders as compared with findings for typical speakers, including comment on the grammatical, pragmatic, and affective aspects of prosody.