SLPPilotThe South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings2021

Preliminary reliability of South African adaptation and Northern Sotho translation of the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers, Revised with Follow-Up.

Carlien Vorster, Alta Kritzinger, Lovina E Coetser and 1 others

PMID 34342485

WHAT IT FOUND

The two versions of an autism screen gave almost the same answers from 21 caregivers in a small pilot.

Two toddlers needed follow-up questions, then screened low risk. Most preferred English.

Key findings

01The two versions gave equivalent answers on 416 of 420 item pairs, and four pairs differed.

02In the Northern Sotho version, two toddlers required follow-up questions after medium-risk scores, and both were low risk after follow-up.

03Eight caregivers preferred the Northern Sotho version and 13 preferred the adapted English version.

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

Only 21 caregivers were studied, and they were recruited by snowball sampling, so the results may not represent all Northern Sotho-speaking families. All participants could read English and Northern Sotho/Sepedi and had passed Grade 4, so caregivers with lower literacy or no English reading may not be represented. The sample was from a peri-urban community where English is commonly used, and 13 of 21 preferred English. Toddlers were selected to have no diagnosed conditions and no delayed milestones, and no high-risk cases were identified, so the study cannot show how well the screen finds autism in real clinics. The study tested agreement between two versions, not validation against a clinical diagnosis. The small sample did not allow analysis of whether language preference was related to age or education.

Declared interests

The supplied text does not report funding or conflict-of-interest declarations.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read this as evidence that the adapted or translated M-CHAT-R/F has been validated for autism screening. It was a small pilot with 21 caregivers, no high-risk cases, and it compared two versions rather than checking whether the screen correctly identifies autism.

Read it on PubMed →