Autism assessment via telehealth during the Covid 19 pandemic: Experiences and perspectives of autistic adults, parents/carers and clinicians.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a rapid increase in the use of telehealth to deliver services to autistic individuals and their families. Research into the provision of autism assessments via telehealth is limited and few studies have explored clinician perspectives of conducting diagnostic assessments for autism in this way. The objective of this study was to examine the acceptability of a new telehealth model from the perspective of key stakeholder groups in an Australian community-based sample i.e. clients undergoing assessment, parent/carers and expert clinicians. METHODS: Sixteen adult clients (M age = 39.00, SD age = 14.39) and fifty-six parent/carers of children and adults (M age = 44.09, SD age = 9.87) undergoing autism assessments completed an online survey about their experiences of assessments via telehealth. Of these, six clients and twelve parent/carers agreed to participate in follow up interviews. Seven clinicians were also interviewed. RESULTS: In this study, the majority of adults and parent/carers reported that they, or the person they cared for, felt comfortable interacting with the clinician, would be willing to undergo future assessments via telehealth and were not concerned that important information had been missed during the assessment. Although the clinicians were slightly less satisfied with tele-assessment process compared to face-to-face and relied on external sources of information more than they would during a face-to-face assessment, their overall confidence in their diagnostic decision making remained high. CONCLUSION: Autism assessment via telehealth may be an acceptable alternative in some circumstances. However, a telehealth service should consider screening clients for suitability and adequately preparing clients for tele-assessments.

Brief report: an exploratory study comparing diagnostic outcomes for autism spectrum disorders under DSM-IV-TR with the proposed DSM-5 revision.

The proposed revision for Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders--Fifth Edition (DSM-5) represents a shift from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders--Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR). As the proposed DSM-5 criteria require a higher minimum number of symptoms to be present compared to DSM-IV-TR, there have been some concerns about the impact that this will have on diagnostic outcomes. Therefore, the current study aimed to compare diagnostic outcomes using both DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5 criteria for 132 children. Of the 111 participants who received an ASD diagnosis under DSM-IV-TR, 26 did not meet DSM-5 criteria. The majority of these had received a DSM-IV-TR PDD-NOS diagnosis. Implications of the results and the proposed DSM-5 changes to the ASD criteria are discussed.

Investigating the clinical usefulness of the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS) in a tertiary level, autism spectrum disorder specific assessment clinic.

The Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS; Constantino and Gruber in Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS). Western Psychological Services, Los Angeles, 2005) is a commonly used screening tool for identifying children with possible autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This study investigated the relationship between SRS scores and eventual diagnostic outcome for children referred to a tertiary level, autism specific assessment service. Forty eight children (mean age = 8.10; 92% male) underwent a comprehensive ASD assessment. Parent and teacher SRS scores were subsequently compared with diagnostic outcome. Sensitivity was high (91% for parent report; 84% for teacher report), however specificity was much lower (8% for parent report; 41% for teacher report). Results demonstrate a need for caution when interpreting SRS results based on current cut-off scores, particularly in children with previously identified social developmental problems.