Evaluation of clinical assessments of social abilities for use in autism clinical trials by the autism biomarkers consortium for clinical trials.
All eight social-communication scales split ASD from NT kids and stayed stable, yet they differ in demographic bias—so match the tool to your question and add self-report for fluent clients.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Faja et al. (2023) tested eight popular social-communication tools.
They wanted to know which ones best tell ASD and neurotypical kids apart.
They also checked if scores stay the same after six weeks.
What they found
Every tool separated the two groups.
Six-week retest scores were steady.
Yet each tool reacted differently to age, sex, and IQ.
How this fits with other research
Byrne et al. (2025) built the BOSCC-F1/F2 for fluent speakers.
Their tool is reliable, but it caught zero change over time.
This looks like a clash: Susan’s picks work for group change, Katherine’s does not.
The gap is in the goal: Susan compared groups, Katherine tracked one person over weeks.
Cary et al. (2024) asked kids to rate their own social drive.
They showed child self-report adds new data beyond parent forms.
Susan only used adult-report or clinician tools, so adding self-ratings could sharpen choice.
Why it matters
Pick ADOS-2 CSS or SRS-2 when you need clear group separation.
Pick Vineland-3 or ADOS-2 CSS when you must track progress.
If your client talks in full sentences, also gather self-report so you do not miss their view.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run ADOS-2 CSS for intake, then Vineland-3 at three-month reviews.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Clinical trials in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often rely on clinician rating scales and parent surveys to measure autism-related features and social behaviors. To aid in the selection of these assessments for future clinical trials, the Autism Biomarkers Consortium for Clinical Trials (ABC-CT) directly compared eight common instruments with respect to acquisition rates, sensitivity to group differences, equivalence across demographic sub-groups, convergent validity, and stability over a 6-week period. The sample included 280 children diagnosed with ASD (65 girls) and 119 neurotypical children (36 girls) aged from 6 to 11 years. Full scale IQ for ASD ranged from 60 to 150 and for neurotypical ranged from 86 to 150. Instruments measured clinician global assessment and autism-related behaviors, social communication abilities, adaptive function, and social withdrawal behavior. For each instrument, we examined only the scales that measured social or communication functioning. Data acquisition rates were at least 97.5% at T1 and 95.7% at T2. All scales distinguished diagnostic groups. Some scales significantly differed by participant and/or family demographic characteristics. Within the ASD group, most clinical instruments exhibited weak (≥ |0.1|) to moderate (≥ |0.4|) intercorrelations. Short-term stability was moderate (ICC: 0.5-0.75) to excellent (ICC: >0.9) within the ASD group. Variations in the degree of stability may inform viability for different contexts of use, such as identifying clinical subgroups for trials versus serving as a modifiable clinical outcome. All instruments were evaluated in terms of their advantages and potential concerns for use in clinical trials.
Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research, 2023 · doi:10.1352/0047-6765(1997)035<0010:DIPATR>2.0.CO;2