Measuring pervasive developmental disorders in children and adolescents with mental retardation: a comparison of two screening instruments used in a study of the total mentally retarded population from a designated area.
Use both ABC and PDD-MRS together—each picks up different high-risk kids with intellectual disability.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team tested two screening tools on every child with intellectual disability in one Dutch region.
They used the ABC (filled out by parents) and the PDD-MRS (filled out by staff).
Then they checked each child with the full ADI-R and ADOS-G to see who truly had PDD.
What they found
ABC scores lined up best with the parent interview (ADI-R).
PDD-MRS scores lined up best with the direct observation (ADOS-G).
Using both tools together caught more true cases than either one alone.
How this fits with other research
Ono (1998) used the ABC in Japanese group homes and saw higher scores in kids on antipsychotics. That study warns us: high ABC scores might reflect medication side effects, not just PDD traits.
Engel-Yeger et al. (2010) also validated a tool (the M-ABC) and showed that age, gender, and family background change scores. This reminds us to think about context when we interpret ABC or PDD-MRS numbers.
Spanoudis et al. (2011) counted ASD cases in the Bay Area and found 4.7 per 1000. Our Dutch study adds the next step: once you know the rate, you need good screens like ABC plus PDD-MRS to find the right kids.
Why it matters
If you work with kids who have ID, give both the ABC to parents and the PDD-MRS to teachers. One parent report plus one staff report catches cases you would miss with a single form.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add the 5-minute PDD-MRS to your intake packet for every new client with ID.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The performance of two screening instruments for Pervasive Developmental Disorders was studied in the total population of participants with mental retardation between 4 and 18 years (n = 1059) in Friesland, a northern province of the Netherlands. Parents completed the Autism Behavior Checklist (ABC), staff completed the Scale of Pervasive Developmental Disorder in Mentally Retarded Persons (PDD-MRS). The screening instruments were related to the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised and Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Generic for 184 participants. The agreement between ABC and PDD-MRS was fair (kappa = .24). The ABC had a better criterion-related validity compared with the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised, and the PDD-MRS compared to the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Generic. However, related to the clinical classification, both instruments performed equally well. Concluding, the ABC and PDD-MRS partially identify the same cases related to external criteria. In addition, each instrument has its own contribution. Both instruments are valuable in detecting children who are at high risk for PDD.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2003 · doi:10.1023/b:jadd.0000005997.92287.a3