SLPSurveyAutism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research2017

"Frank" presentations as a novel research construct and element of diagnostic decision-making in autism spectrum disorder.

Ashley de Marchena, Judith Miller

PMID 27770496

WHAT IT FOUND

Most ASD diagnosticians recognise a rapid, clear 'frank' presentation in about 40% of their patients.

Clinicians form these impressions quickly, often within 10 minutes, primarily through observed social and repetitive behaviors. This suggests experience shapes diagnostic intuition, though it requires careful checking against formal criteria.

Key findings

0197% of eligible providers reported experiencing the 'you know it when you see it' phenomenon of frank ASD.

02On average, clinicians reported that 40% of patients diagnosed with ASD have a frank presentation.

0352% of participants described themselves as detecting frank features within 10 minutes.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study relied entirely on self-report, with no verification of actual diagnostic outcomes or accuracy. Speech-language pathologists and other non-diagnostic clinicians were excluded from the analysis, limiting generalizability to those disciplines. The response rate was low (14%), which may introduce bias if only certain types of clinicians responded. There was no data on the specific training, setting, or types of referrals seen by respondents, making it hard to account for environmental factors.

Declared interests

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was deemed exempt by the Institutional Review Board at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

The easy way to misread this

Do not interpret the rapid formation of 'frank' impressions as evidence that formal diagnostic tools are unnecessary. The authors note that while these impressions are common, they can lead to confirmation bias, and most clinicians still proceed with standard evaluations regardless of initial impressions.

Read it on PubMed →