Questionnaire screening for comorbid pervasive developmental disorders in congenitally blind children: a pilot study.

Gaylord-Ross et al. (1995) asked teachers to fill out the Autism Behavior Checklist for blind children.

They used two forms: the regular checklist and a version with blindness-related items removed.

The goal was to see if the tool could catch pervasive developmental disorders without flagging every blind child.

The modified checklist cut false alarms.

Teachers’ scores on the tweaked form pointed to the kids who really had PDD.

The regular form still worked, but the slimmed-down version was cleaner.

De Kegel et al. (2016) found the Child Behavior Checklist cried wolf too often, with most flagged kids not having ASD. Their data seem to clash with R’s upbeat view, but the tools differ: ABC targets autism traits while CBCL casts a wide net for any behavior problem.

Jarjoura (2024) extends this work. They warn that blindness itself can mimic autism—hand-flapping, late language, social quirks—so any screen must separate true ASD from blindness-only behaviors. Their five new criteria build on R’s call for blindness-aware items.

So et al. (2013) also show teacher forms can work: a 10-item CBCL/TRF scale safely ruled out ASD in 95 % of typical kids, backing the idea that teachers can give useful first-pass data when the items fit the population.

If you serve a child with little or no vision, grab the teacher before you grab the ADOS. Ask for the ABC, skip the blindness-related items, and treat a high score as a yellow light, not a stop sign. Pair the results with Waleed’s five criteria to decide whether fuller autism testing is needed. This keeps you from chasing phantom ASD and saves hours for the kids who really need intensive teaching.