Brief report: telephone administration of the autism diagnostic interview--revised: reliability and suitability for use in research.

Kingston et al. (2010) tested the PARS-R anxiety scale on kids and adults with Fragile X syndrome. They wanted to know if the tool gives the same score when different clinicians use it and if it truly tracks anxiety symptoms.

The team gave the PARS-R twice to the same people and compared the numbers. They also checked if scores matched other signs of anxiety clinicians saw during visits.

The scale showed high reliability. Two raters usually gave the same score, and repeat tests stayed close. Scores also moved up and down with real-world anxiety behaviors.

In short, the PARS-R works for Fragile X clients of any age or gender. You can trust it to spot change when you treat anxiety.

Storch et al. (2012) ran a close cousin study. They gave the same PARS to youth with autism and got similar good reliability. Together the papers show the scale is solid across Fragile X and ASD groups.

Lecavalier et al. (2014) looked at every anxiety measure used in autism trials. They said only four tools are trial-ready, and the PARS made the short list. Kingston et al. (2010) supplies the early proof that Luc’s panel later endorsed.

Noordenbos et al. (2012) found high-functioning ASD teens under-report their own anxiety. Jessica’s work did not use self-report; clinicians rated clients directly. The studies line up: use clinician scales like PARS-R when clients may minimize symptoms.

If you serve clients with Fragile X or similar ID, you now have a brief, free scale that reliably tracks anxiety before and after intervention. Add the PARS-R to your intake packet and re-give it every six weeks to see if your CBT or medication plan is working.