A review of cultural adaptations of screening tools for autism spectrum disorders.
Autism screening tools lose reliability when culturally adapted without rigorous processes—always collect local normative data before clinical use.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Strunz et al. (2015) looked at every study that changed an autism screening tool to fit a new culture. They found papers from 19 countries that moved items, rewrote words, or swapped pictures.
The team asked: did the adapters follow a clear plan and collect local norms? Most did not.
What they found
Many tools were changed quickly, without steps to check if they still worked. Few teams gathered new norm data from local children.
Because of this, the adapted screens often lost reliability. Clinicians cannot trust scores that lack local proof.
How this fits with other research
Harris et al. (2014) said the same thing one year earlier: popular ASD tools are not culturally ready. Sandra’s review adds more papers and shows the problem is global.
Cheong et al. (2022) gives the fix. They carefully re-normed the Mullen Scales in Taiwan and got strong reliability. This example proves Sandra’s point: rigorous steps work.
Dyches et al. (2004) first called for multicultural autism work. Sandra’s data turn that old call into a clear checklist you can use today.
Why it matters
If you screen children from diverse families, never trust a translated M-CHAT or ADOS without local norms. Ask who re-normed it and how. If no one did, plan to collect your own small baseline or pick a tool that already has them. This simple check guards against false positives and missed diagnoses.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Check the manual of any adapted screener you use—if local norms are missing, start a small baseline data sheet with your first five clients this week.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Screening children to determine risk for Autism Spectrum Disorders has become more common, although some question the advisability of such a strategy. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify autism screening tools that have been adapted for use in cultures different from that in which they were developed, evaluate the cultural adaptation process, report on the psychometric properties of the adapted instruments, and describe the implications for further research and clinical practice. A total of 21 articles met criteria for inclusion, reporting on the cultural adaptation of autism screening in 19 countries and in 10 languages. The cultural adaptation process was not always clearly outlined and often did not include the recommended guidelines. Cultural/linguistic modifications to the translated tools tended to increase with the rigor of the adaptation process. Differences between the psychometric properties of the original and adapted versions were common, indicating the need to obtain normative data on populations to increase the utility of the translated tool.
Autism : the international journal of research and practice, 2015 · doi:10.1177/1362361314541012