Applicability and Psychometric Properties of General Mental Health Assessment Tools in Autistic People: A Systematic Review.

Most studies used clinic or convenience samples, so the results may not apply to autistic people in the wider community. Only 12% of papers included adults, and only 16 papers used self-report instruments, so evidence is thin for adults and for autistic people reporting on themselves. Autism diagnosis was not confirmed by a standardized tool in 26% of studies, relying instead on parent report or school placement. Only 20% of papers included samples with intellectual functioning in the normal range, so many tools were not tested across the full range of cognitive and verbal abilities. The review did not describe autism severity for each sample because that information was not reported consistently. The instruments were mostly English-language tools, and the review included English publications, which may limit use in other languages.

Funded by Helse Nord RHF and UiT The Arctic University of Norway, including the University Hospital of North Norway. During the review, two assessors had a potential conflict of interest for six papers, so a third reviewer scored the risk of bias for those papers.

Do not assume widely used tools such as the ASEBA or SDQ are adequate for all autistic clients. Their validity evidence was inconsistent or unconfirmed, and the review did not show that any tool can diagnose mental health conditions across the whole autism population.