A systematic review of technological approaches for autism spectrum disorder assessment in children: Implications for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Tyler et al. (2021) looked at 16 studies that used screens to test kids for autism. They wanted to know if video calls, apps, and online tools give good results when you cannot meet in person.

The review focused on the COVID era, when clinics closed and families stayed home. All studies tested children with autism or suspected autism using some form of remote tech.

Every study showed that live-video and online tests picked up autism signs. The authors say these tools are a workable back-up when face-to-face evaluation is not possible.

They did not give exact accuracy numbers, but the pattern across studies was clear: tech-based assessment can work.

Sutherland et al. (2025) later put the claim to a hard test. They compared telehealth and in-person exams for 21 minimally verbal toddlers. The two methods agreed on 19 out of 21 diagnoses—90 % match—so the review’s ‘viable’ claim now has strong numbers behind it.

Meimei et al. (2022) added finer detail. Their 2022 review of 17 tele-tools found sensitivity as high as 1.0 in some cases, but specificity swung from 0.38 to 1.0. In plain words: the screens rarely miss autism, yet they can sometimes over-call it. V et al. did not report these ranges, so the newer review sharpens the picture.

Bogenschutz et al. (2015) is an earlier piece of the puzzle. They already showed excellent agreement between video-conferencing and in-person teams, giving the 2021 review a sturdy building block.

You can now feel confident scheduling a tele-assessment when weather, illness, or distance blocks an office visit. Start with a tool that has published sensitivity and specificity, like the TELE-ASD-PEDS used by Sutherland et al. or the ADEC-V reported in ESutton et al. (2022). Keep a short backup list of families who might accept a remote slot; filling cancellations this way can cut your waitlist without lowering quality.