Using the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised and the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Generic for the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders in a Greek sample with a wide range of intellectual abilities.
ADI-R and ADOS-G work well for classic autism but agree only fairly on broader spectrum cases.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Papanikolaou et al. (2009) tested how well the ADI-R and ADOS-G diagnose autism in Greek children. The kids had a wide range of IQ scores. The team compared the two gold-standard tools head-to-head.
What they found
Both tools caught classic autistic disorder very well. Agreement between them was only fair for the broader autism spectrum. Clinicians should trust the tools for classic autism but be careful with milder cases.
How this fits with other research
Maddox et al. (2015) and Taheri et al. (2012) show DSM-5 rules now replace the DSM-IV framework used here. Expect some children to gain or lose diagnosis when you switch.
Mayes et al. (2009) ran a similar study the same year. They found near-perfect accuracy with different tools. Together the papers prove multiple instruments can work well when used carefully.
Reus et al. (2013) add a warning: ADHD can inflate ADI-R scores. If a child scores high, screen for ADHD before you trust the result.
Why it matters
You can keep using the ADI-R and ADOS-G for classic autism. For broader ASD or kids with ADHD symptoms, gather extra data. Update your assessment protocol to include DSM-5 criteria and always rule out ADHD before finalizing a diagnosis.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add an ADHD screener to your intake packet before you run the ADI-R.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We studied the interrelationship between the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Generic (ADOS-G), the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R) and DSM-IV clinical diagnosis, in a Greek sample of 77 children and adolescents, referred for the assessment of a possible pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) and presenting a wide range of cognitive abilities. The agreement of the ADOS-G and the ADI-R with the clinical diagnosis was estimated as satisfactory and moderate, respectively, while both instruments presented with excellent sensitivity for the diagnosis of autistic disorder along with satisfactory specificity. ADOS-G/ADI-R agreement was estimated as fair. Our results confirm the discriminant validity of ADI-R and ADOS-G in diagnosing pervasive developmental disorders in children and adolescents with a wide range of intellectual abilities.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2009 · doi:10.1007/s10803-008-0639-6