Assessment & Research

Screening accuracy of the parent-completed Ages and Stages Questionnaires - second edition as a broadband screener for motor problems in preschoolers with autism spectrum disorders.

Vanvuchelen et al. (2017) · Autism : the international journal of research and practice 2017
★ The Verdict

The ASQ motor domain misses too many preschoolers with ASD who need motor help—pair it with a direct test.

✓ Read this if BCBAs doing intake assessments for young children with autism.
✗ Skip if Clinicians who already use full motor batteries.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

The team asked parents of preschoolers with autism to fill out the Ages & Stages Questionnaire. They wanted to see how well the form spots real motor delays.

Doctors later gave each child a full motor test. They compared parent answers to the gold-standard scores.

02

What they found

The gross-motor questions caught every child who truly had delays. But they also flagged many typical kids as delayed.

Fine-motor questions were quieter. They missed three out of ten children who really needed help.

03

How this fits with other research

Bhat (2024) later checked two other parent motor forms in a huge sample. DCD-Q plus VABS caught 70 % of delays, beating either tool alone.

Norris et al. (2010) warned that many Level-2 screens miss cases. Their review already hinted the ASQ motor part was weak.

Hampton et al. (2015) found broad-band parent tools can work for autism red flags. Marleen’s result shows the same idea does NOT hold for motor items.

Barnard-Brak et al. (2016) showed the SCQ also loses accuracy in preschoolers. Together the papers say: parent forms help, but never trust just one.

04

Why it matters

If you only use the ASQ motor boxes, you will under-refer for therapy. Add a quick hands-on test like the PDMS-2 or at least a second parent form. One extra step saves months of missed intervention time.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Add the PDMS-2 gross- and fine-motor subtests to your intake packet for every new 3- to 5-year-old with ASD.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
other
Sample size
43
Population
autism spectrum disorder
Finding
mixed

03Original abstract

Children with autism spectrum disorders are at risk for motor problems. However, this area is often overlooked in the developmental evaluation in autism diagnostic clinics. An alternative can be to identify children who should receive intensive motor assessment by using a parent-based screener. The aim of this study was to examine whether the Ages and Stages Questionnaires - second edition may be used to identify gross and fine motor problems in children. High-functioning children with autism spectrum disorder (n = 43, 22-54 m) participated in this study. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were calculated by comparing the Ages and Stages Questionnaires - second edition scores to the developmental evaluation of the Peabody Developmental Motor Scale - second edition. The results revealed that both the Ages and Stages Questionnaires - second edition gross and fine motor domain may be used to identify children without motor problems. In contrast, sensitivity analyses revealed the likelihood of under screening motor problems in this population. The Ages and Stages Questionnaires - second edition met only the criteria of a fair to good accuracy to identify poor gross motor (sensitivity = 100%) and below-average fine motor development (sensitivity = 71%) in this sample. Hence, the capacity of the Ages and Stages Questionnaires - second edition to identify motor problems in preschoolers with autism spectrum disorder appears to be limited. It is recommended to include a formal standardized motor test in the diagnostic procedure for all children with autism spectrum disorder.

Autism : the international journal of research and practice, 2017 · doi:10.1177/1362361315621703