You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 22, Issue 4
  • Use of the M-CHAT follow-up interview (M-CHAT/F) by paediatricians during well-child care visits is feasible, valid and reliable

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Diagnosis
Prediction rule
Use of the M-CHAT follow-up interview (M-CHAT/F) by paediatricians during well-child care visits is feasible, valid and reliable
  1. Thyde Dumont-Mathieu
  1. Connecticut Children's Medical Center, Hartford, Connecticut, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Thyde Dumont-Mathieu, Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics, Connecticut Children's Medical Center, 282 Washington Street, Hartford, CT 06106, USA; tdumont{at}connecticutchildrens.org

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2016-110654

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Citation: Sturner R, Howard B, Bergmann P, et al. Autism screening with online decision support by primary care pediatricians aided by M-CHAT/F. Pediatrics. 2016 Sep;138: e20153036.

    Context

    Early identification of children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) leads to early intervention and improved outcomes.1 The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends universal screening with a validated tool such as the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (M-CHAT) at well-child care visits.2 The M-CHAT/R (original M-CHAT and its revised version) includes a follow-up interview (the M-CHAT/R-F) designed to clarify positive responses. Use of the M-CHAT/R-F significantly improves the positive predictive value (PPV) of the tool,3 but questions remain regarding the feasibility of using the interview in routine clinical care.

    Methods

    The study investigated the feasibility of using the follow-up interview in routine practice …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.