Stability and Validity of Self-Reported Depression and Anxiety in Autistic Youth.
Soo Youn Kim, Luc Lecavalier
PMID 39001970WHAT IT FOUND
Autistic youth give consistent self-reports of anxiety and depression over two weeks.
However, standard screening cutoffs are often too high. Lower thresholds are needed to catch cases, especially for social anxiety and depression, though some scales fail to detect generalized anxiety.
Key findings
01Autistic youth showed moderate-to-good test-retest reliability for self-reported anxiety and depression over a two-week period.
02Standard cutoff scores for the RCADS and CDI 2:SR[S] were often lower than those used for general populations to achieve adequate sensitivity for screening.
03The RCADS Generalized Anxiety (GAD) and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) scales showed poor diagnostic validity and are not recommended for screening these conditions in autistic youth.
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.
What it does not show
The sample was small (n=55) and recruited via convenience sampling. The study excluded individuals with significant intellectual or language impairment (minimum IQ/adaptive score of 50), so findings may not generalize to lower-functioning autistic youth. The K-SADS-PL is based on DSM-5 criteria and may not capture atypical presentations of anxiety or depression specific to autism. The two-week interval may have captured natural symptom fluctuation rather than pure measurement error, particularly for depression.
Declared interests
The study was funded by Ohio State University. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that a 'normal' score on the RCADS or CDI 2:SR[S] rules out anxiety or depression in autistic youth. The standard cutoffs are too high for this population, leading to false negatives. Use the lower thresholds identified in this study for screening, and recognize that the RCADS GAD and MDD scales are not valid for diagnosis.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →