Comparison of Diagnostic Profiles of Deaf and Hearing Children with a Diagnosis of Autism.

There is limited research comparing the presentation of autism in deaf and hearing children and young people. These comparisons are important to facilitate accurate diagnosis, as rates of misdiagnosis and delay in diagnosis amongst deaf children and young people are high. The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic assessment profiles of a UK cohort of autistic deaf and hearing children and young people. The Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised-Deaf adaptation was completed with the parents of 106 children and young people (deaf children = 65; hearing children = 41). The majority of items explored showed no significant differences between deaf and hearing children and young people. Differences were found in peer relationships, where autistic deaf participants were less likely to respond to the approaches of other children or play imaginatively with peers. These findings need to be taken into consideration by clinicians in the assessment process.

Adapting and validating the Autism Diagnostic Interview - Revised for use with deaf children and young people.

LAY ABSTRACT: Autism assessment processes need to improve for deaf children as they are currently being diagnosed later than their hearing counterparts and misdiagnosis can occur. We took one of the most commonly used parent developmental interviews for autism spectrum disorder the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised and adapted it using international expert advice. Modifications were proposed and agreed by the expert panel for 45% of items; the remaining 55% of items were unchanged. We then tested the revised version, adapted for deaf children (Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised Deaf Adaptation), in a UK sample of 78 parents/carers of deaf children with autism spectrum disorder and 126 parents/carers with deaf children without autism spectrum disorder. When compared to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline standard clinical assessments, the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised Deaf Adaptation diagnostic algorithm threshold scores could identify those deaf children with a definite diagnosis (true autism spectrum disorder positives) well (sensitivity of 89% (79%-96%)) and those deaf children who did not have autism spectrum disorder (true autism spectrum disorder negatives) well (specificity of 81% (70%-89%)). Our findings indicate that the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised Deaf Adaptation is likely to prove a useful measure for the assessment of deaf children with suspected autism spectrum disorder and that further research would be helpful.

Adapting and validating the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule Version 2 for use with deaf children and young people.

We report a Delphi Consensus modification and first validation study of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule - 2 with deaf children and young people (ADOS-2 Deaf adaptation). Validation included 122 deaf participants (aged 2-18 years), 63 with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). This was compared to a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guideline standard clinical assessment by blinded independent specialist clinicians. Results showed overall sensitivity 73% (95%CI 60%, 83%); specificity 71% (95%CI 58%, 82%), and for the more common modules 1-3 (combined as in previous studies) sensitivity 79% (95% CI 65-89%); specificity 79% (95% CI 66-89%) suggesting this instrument will be a helpful addition for use with deaf children and young people.

A large population-based study of the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people in the North of England.

BACKGROUND: There has been a recent reported rise in prevalence of mental health problems among children in the United Kingdom, alongside increased referrals into specialist services. There is a need for up-to-date information regarding changing trends of young people's mental health to allow for improved understanding and service planning. OBJECTIVES: This article aims to provide an overview of the current mental health and well-being of years 8, 9 and 11 secondary school-aged pupils from two large regions in the North of England. METHOD: This was a cohort cross-sectional study. Measures including the Strengths and Difficulties questionnaire, the EQ-5D-Y, social media use questions, and a mental health service use questionnaire were completed by participants. RESULTS: In total, 6328 questionnaires were returned from 21 secondary schools. One in 10 participating pupils scored 'very high' for total mental health difficulties. Significant differences on well-being scores were found between both gender and year groups. CONCLUSION: In recent years, the proportion of children facing mental health problems has increased. In particular, high levels of female pupils and year 11 pupils report facing difficulties. It is important to develop targeted, accessible interventions, and to continue to collect up-to-date measures for this population.

Modifying and validating the social responsiveness scale edition 2 for use with deaf children and young people.

A Delphi consensus methodology was used to adapt a screening tool, the Social Responsiveness Scale- 2 (SRS-2), for use with deaf children including those whose preferred communication method is sign language. Using this approach; 27 international experts (The Delphi International Expert Panel), on the topic of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in deaf people, contributed to the review of item content. A criterion for agreement was set at 80% of experts on each item (with 75% acceptable in the final fourth round). The agreed modifications are discussed. The modified SRS-2 research adaptation for deaf people (referred to here as the "SRS-2 Deaf adaptation") was then translated into British Sign Language using a robust translation methodology and validated in England in a sample of 198 deaf children, 76 with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and 122 without ASD. The SRS-2 Deaf adaptation was compared blind to a NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) guideline standard clinical assessment. The area under the Receiver Operating (ROC) curve was 0.811 (95% CI: 0.753, 0.869), with an optimal cut-off value of 73, which gave a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 67%. The Cronbach Alpha coefficient was 0.968 suggesting high internal consistency. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient was 0.897, supporting test-retest reliability. This performance is equivalent to similar instruments used for screening ASD in the hearing population.