A survey of assessment practices among health professionals diagnosing females with autism.

BACKGROUND: Emerging research suggests there may be a distinct female autism phenotype, although females are still diagnosed at a much lower rate than males. To date, no research has examined the assessment practices of health professionals when assessing females for autism. AIMS: This study aimed to identify the training received, level of confidence, and assessment practices specific to assessing females for autism. METHODS AND PROCEDURE: An online survey was completed by 126 health professionals (34 paediatricians, 40 psychologists and 52 speech pathologists) working across Australia. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: The majority of health professionals received no training that addressed gender differences when assessing for autism, even when controlling for number of years since they completed their studies. Most health professionals reported using similar assessment practices when assessing and diagnosing males and females for autism; only 18.2 % reported using female-specific assessment measures. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Suggestions for the lack of difference in assessment measures used across genders are discussed. Potential for including measures that may be more sensitive to the presentation of autism in females in health professional's assessment practices is identified. The high proportion of health professionals engaging in professional development following their clinical training highlights the importance of training opportunities to enhance practitioner understanding and confidence when undertaking assessments for autism in females.

The Feedback Session of an Autism Assessment: A Scoping Review of Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations.

This review aimed to assess the quality and content of recommendations for delivering an autism diagnosis, published internationally within clinical practice guidelines. Seventeen relevant guidelines were identified. When methodological information was provided, recommendations for feedback were predominantly formed through consensus. Recommendations consistently included who should attend feedback, the timing and mode of delivery, the clinician's manner, and what should be discussed and/or included in an accompanying report. Specific recommendations were not consistent however, and a number of gaps were identified, such as the inclusion of educators and educational specific recommendations. Although individual variation is necessary for autism diagnosis disclosure, agreement on minimum standards of practice is warranted. Further investigation is required to establish best practice.