I’m currently undergoing evaluation for ADHD & ASD, and as a part of that, one of the tests I was asked to take was the RAADS-R, and on the page with the test it explains the test’s reliability and validity:
- Sensitivity 97% Test’s ability to identify positive results
- Specificity 100% Test’s ability to identify negative results
- Concurrent validity 96% Test’s validity compared with ADOS Module 4, SRS
- Test–retest reliability .987 Test’s agreement between results of successive measurements
A sensitivity of 97% means that 97% of autistic people who took the test met the cutoff score and were accurately classified as autistic. Said another way, it represents the proportion of autistics who were correctly classified as autistic based on the questionnaire.
In contrast, a 100% specificity score means that all (100% of) the neurotypical people who took the test were below the cutoff score and were accurately classified as non-autistic. It represents the proportion of neurotypicals who were correctly classified as neurotypical based on the questionnaire.
The takeaway is that the RAADS–R has a high probability of accurately classifying those who take the test as autistic or not autistic.
It then cites this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3134766/
I’m wondering how suspicious I should feel here by these numbers - I notice in the cited study, re-testing in a UCLA study was with only 15 ASD subjects and another 15 control subjects … Of the studies listed, only one had more than 50 participants, most were fewer than 20 total.
I guess I wonder how confident we should feel that no neurotypical will score above a certain threshold (a score of 65)?
Autism diagnosis confirmed, you passed the test by looking up the studies about the test.
I don’t think you read the study accurately
Of the studies listed, only one had more than 50 participants, most were fewer than 20 total.
This is one study, performed over several locations. Are you referring to table 8? These are people with ASD diagnosis who participated at each clinic not the total number of people who participated at each clinic.
I guess I wonder how confident we should feel that no neurotypical will score above a certain threshold (a score of 65)?
I guess this depends on how willing you are to apply objective analysis to an inherently subjective topic?
The study discusses the differences between scores at each clinic indicating that while the scores of the ASD participants were different across clinics, the gap between ASD subjects and non ASD subjects was statistically significant (p < .0001).
Are you takings the RAADS-R with the clinician or alone? That’s more interesting to me than the study results because the study itself states
The RAADS-R was designed to assist clinicians in diagnosing adults (18+) with suspected ASD. It is designed to be administered by clinicians in a clinical setting. It is not intended to be a mail in or an online screening instrument
Because
Scales based on self-reports have inherent limitations: First, a subject may not understand a question, and while answering to the best of their ability, give a misleading answer. This was mitigated in the present study by having a clinician remain with the subject to clarify possible misunderstandings during the administration of the RAADS-R.
So if it is self administered and not repeated with a clinician, I don’t think the results can be expected to be the same as the study. One of the main controls is absent!
This is one study, performed over several locations. Are you referring to table 8? These are people with ASD diagnosis who participated at each clinic not the total number of people who participated at each clinic.
ah, I suspected I was not understanding this correctly - thank you; yes, my brain was tired and I wasn’t being thorough 🙈
Are you takings the RAADS-R with the clinician or alone? That’s more interesting to me than the study results because the study itself states
a clinician sent it to me, he also asked me to take the RBD-2A and the CAT-Q; I took 6 other tests, in addition to the many other tests they sent me before my appointment.
So if it is self administered and not repeated with a clinician, I don’t think the results can be expected to be the same as the study. One of the main controls is absent!
ah, unfortunately the clinician just sent me the online test, I did not take it with him there to ask questions (which would have been really helpful, imo).
I have an in-person follow-up in a month to be tested, so it’s probably fine - I get the impression he’s throwing a lot of tests at me as early indicators, not as the final say or anything.
I didn’t mean to suggest the assessment you are doing was flawed in some way! I think my own assessment was duplicating some of the self assessment tests with the clinician. I just mentioned it to point out some of the additional scrutiny and considerations that were part of the study that you have not yet seen.
I didn’t want to make this flippant remark earlier but I agree with the other reply that you passed the assessment by researching studies on the accuracy of the assessment ;)
If we’re defining NT as not just “not autistic” but no ND at all, I think we can be pretty confident in that. The test is about problems you have. Personally when I take tests on being a sociopath, narcissistic, or bipolar, I have never once scored anywhere close to the threshold, because I just don’t have those problems.
I will say that, the thing about not understanding social cues is that you don’t always understand when you don’t understand them. We can severely underestimate our deficits compared to normal people, because we don’t have a great grasp on how other peoples’ brains are. Even now I still find deficits I wasn’t aware of. I didn’t think I had an issue with being literal until I met my boyfriend. He really likes word play jokes, and I miss them A LOT. I need to have them said a few times before I get them. It’s not that it’s impossible for me to understand. I’m realizing I’m just a lot slower than normal and need to think about it.
So I don’t think the issue with RAADS-R would be overestimation, it’d be underestimation.
I might have autism 😵💫
You’re in good company.
