A review of the diagnostic methods reported in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.
Autism research often hides the details you need to decide if a diagnosis is solid.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The authors read every autism paper in one journal for several years. They looked at how each study said, 'This child has autism.'
They wanted to see if writers used the same rules and told the same details.
What they found
Most papers named a standard checklist like DSM. Few said how they scored it or if they counted other diagnoses.
Rules about who was in or out were often missing.
How this fits with other research
Bao et al. (2017) later looked at screening tools in poor countries and found the same holes. Strunz et al. (2015) saw weak cultural notes in adapted screeners. The problem moved but did not go away.
Plate (2025) checked natural-language samples and again found spotty methods. The 1999 warning keeps echoing.
Lord et al. (1997) had shown the ADI-R works when you follow the full script. The review proves many writers skip that step.
Why it matters
Before you trust any autism study, flip to the methods page. If you do not see clear cut-offs, numbers, and comorbidity rules, treat the results as a maybe. Ask the same when you write. Add a short table: tool name, version, score range, excluded diagnoses. Your readers and future meta-analysts will thank you.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a five-row table to your next report: tool, version, score cut-off, who was excluded, who did the scoring.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This review summarizes subject selection and diagnostic procedures documented in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. One hundred forty-two empirical articles published between February 1993 and April 1997 were examined. Reviewers independently evaluated articles using a coding instrument developed by the authors. Results indicated that a majority of researchers reported the use of one or more standard diagnostic criteria in classifying their subjects. However, numerous studies did not report the methods by which the diagnostic criteria were quantified or applied. Additionally, there was a lack of clear specification of inclusion and exclusion criteria for comorbid disorders. Improving the documentation of diagnostic practices in research on autism will benefit researchers and practitioners.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 1999 · doi:10.1023/a:1022262619331