Brief Report: Investigating the Implications of Applying the New DSM-5 Criteria for Diagnosing Autism Spectrum Disorder in a Preschool Population in Singapore.

The team looked at the preschoolers in Singapore who already had an autism diagnosis under the old DSM-IV-TR rules.

They re-checked every child using the new DSM-5 checklist.

The goal was to see how many kids would still qualify for autism under the stricter 2013 rules.

Nine out of ten children kept their diagnosis.

The 9 % who lost the label all had big social-communication problems but very few repetitive behaviors.

In plain words, if a child hand-flaps, lines up toys, or repeats phrases, they almost always stayed in the autism group.

Le Couteur et al. (2008) showed that using both the ADI-R parent interview and the ADOS observation together catches autism well in preschoolers. Wong et al. (2016) now tells us those same tools still work under DSM-5, so you do not need to change your assessment battery.

Levin et al. (2014) found that severity scores from ADOS, CARS, and SRS often disagree. This looks like a contradiction, but it is not: Mae et al. looked at diagnosis yes/no, while S et al. looked at how severe the symptoms are. Both can be true—kids keep the label, yet the numbers differ.

Rogers et al. (2017) proved the SRS-Preschool is valid in Japan. Mae et al. gives parallel evidence for DSM-5 in Singapore, extending the idea that Western tools fit Asian preschoolers too.

If you assess preschoolers, expect roughly one in ten to lose the autism label when you apply DSM-5. Double-check for restricted and repetitive behaviors before you remove services. If those behaviors are missing, plan extra support for social-communication needs even if the child no longer meets full autism criteria.