Assessment & Research

Validity of the Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale for youth with autism spectrum disorders.

Sterling et al. (2015) · Autism : the international journal of research and practice 2015
★ The Verdict

RCADS is okay for quick anxiety or depression screening in high-functioning autistic youth, but double-check high scores against attention measures or use autism-tuned tools instead.

✓ Read this if BCBAs doing mood screening with verbal autistic clients in clinic or school
✗ Skip if Clinicians working with non-verbal or intellectually disabled autistic populations

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Sterling et al. (2015) tested if the Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale works for autistic youth. They gave the RCADS to high-functioning kids with autism. Then they checked if scores matched other mood and attention tests.

02

What they found

The RCADS showed okay internal consistency and modest convergent validity. However, divergent validity was shaky. High anxiety scores could reflect attention problems instead of true anxiety.

03

How this fits with other research

Rodgers et al. (2016) built the ASC-ASD, an autism-tuned anxiety scale, right after this caution. Their 24-item tool adds sensory and uncertainty subscales that RCADS misses.

Bellalou et al. (2021) created a new French depression scale for autistic youth. It captures both behavioral and emotional signs, filling the gap Lindsey flagged.

Together, these papers extend Lindsey's warning. They give you autism-specific options when RCADS scores feel muddy.

04

Why it matters

You can still use RCADS for quick mood screening in high-functioning autistic clients. Just treat high scores as a red flag, not a verdict. Always pair the scale with attention checks or follow-up interviews. When you need cleaner data, switch to ASC-ASD for anxiety or the new French scale for depression.

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 one attention measure to your battery whenever you give RCADS to an autistic client

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
other
Sample size
67
Population
autism spectrum disorder
Finding
weakly positive
Magnitude
small

03Original abstract

High rates of anxiety and depression are reported among youth with autism spectrum disorders. These conditions are generally assessed using measures validated for typically developing youth. Few studies have investigated their validity for autism spectrum disorders, which is crucial for accurate assessment and the provision of proper treatment. The Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale was evaluated with 67 youth with autism spectrum disorders to examine its utility in measuring anxiety and depression in this population. Parents and children (aged 11-15 years) referred to a multisite intervention study completed the Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale, Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children, Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule, Child Behavior Checklist, and Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale. Results suggest acceptable internal consistency of the Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale. Modest convergent validity was found among the Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale and other standardized measures of anxiety and depression. There were stronger correlations between Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale Total scores and subscales of measures expected to correlate significantly than those not expected to correlate. One exception was a significant association between the Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale and Child Behavior Checklist Attention subscale, calling into question the divergent validity in separating anxiety from attention problems. Overall, results suggest preliminary support for the Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale in youth with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders.

Autism : the international journal of research and practice, 2015 · doi:10.1177/1362361313510066