Talk:Autism Diagnostic Interview

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Autism Diagnostic Interview is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Autism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

This article is very well-organized and concise. It goes over a variety of topics that deal with the subject without being too wordy or confusing. The use of subheadings and the contents box really helps one navigate through the article. One major thing that I thought might need to be explained more in depth is what the point of this interview is and what one does after the interview based on its outcome. Also, what was the original interview and how was it revised? Under the criticism/ reliability section you might want to explain exactly what the inter-rater, test-retest reliability, and internal validity tests consist of because the common reader will not know what those are and how exactly they assure reliability and validity of the interview. You seem to have a few good sources but I did notice that not all of you facts are footnoted which would be helpful to the credibility of your article. Margaret Anne McArverMamcarver (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

152.23.202.91 (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Peer Review: This is a well-written, readable, unbiased, and well-organized article. It gives a good overview of the interview process and is written in fairly non-technical language. For a parent about to undergo an ADI-R interview, this would be an informative article to read. Your lead paragraph is concise, a good summary. I especially like your division of the article into distinct sections and sub-sections; this makes it easy to find the specific information that the reader's looking for. The external links section gives sources for further reading about the topic; it was a good choice to include it. I'd recommend adding a "Related Topics" section, where you provide links (using bullet-points) to other articles having to do with autism and diagnostic tests/interviews. You should remove the "stub" notice at the end, because you've expanded the stub into a full article. I'd also add more links to other Wikipedia articles from within the ADI-R article; for example, maybe link to interview when you use the term, or Mental age. Although you do a fairly good job of avoiding technical language, some terms could use some clarification. For example, the terms "social smiling," "stereotyped utterances," and "pronoun reversal" were confusing for me, as a reader with no knowledge of the topic. A quick, sentence-long definition of these technical terms would be extremely helpful. I'd also like to know more about the history of the interview. Who were Michael Rutter, MD FRS, Ann LeCouteur, MBBS and Catherine Lord? What year did they develop the ADI-R? Here's a study written by Catherine Lord, published in 1994. This may have been written when the interview was introduced: [1] What did the developers study? Did a certain need or incident prompt them to develop the interview? Was it changed or perfected over the years, or has it remained exactly as they designed it? Where (and this should go in the lead paragraph) is the interview normally used? Is it primarily in the US, or worldwide? Is the test well-regarded and generally accepted by doctors? What portion of parents of autistic parents undergo the interview - is it standard procedure? Do families generally find it useful? Here's an academic paper which bases its methods on the ADI-R, which suggests that the interview is trusted by professionals [2], and another [3] -Noel Cody[reply]

Peer review: -This is a very informative and organized article. Though it does not give many details, the article's information is straightforward and helpful in understanding the subject matter. Its lede is effective: short, simple, and to-the-point. The article is sourced very well, using scholarly articles and empirical data and also includes external links to psychology resources for those who want more information. The only change I think the article needs is a little more elaboration on some of the areas covered. It would be interesting to see some information about how the ADI-R was developed/why it's structured the way it is, when/where it was developed, who played a role in developing it, etc. Also, if the article mentioned some alternate methods for diagnosing autism or even a brief history of its diagnostic process (what was the methodology before the ADI-R, and what was the original ADI that wasn't revised?). With a little expansion though, this will be an excellent article in my mind. Sscline (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Sscline[reply]

JLowman (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Peer Review Autism Diagnostic Interview- Revised[reply]

So far I think you have a great base for the article. It is includes specific needed details and is VERY organized. Just like we discussed in class, a bit more on the history section would be good or elaboration of the creator. This would greatly help since most of the article so far is short and quick point. Something deeper would add a lot to the strength of your article I know this was brought up when we were talking, but the clarification of the scoring system ( or maybe just rewording) would make it flow a little more smooth. Maybe clarify certain scores give 0 points because they do not related to the child being autistic. Even though it is not hard to understand if you think about it, the easier the reader can understand, the stronger your article can become. Other than these small issues, I think you are off to a wonderful start and believe with a little more work you will be set to go. I did not have much luck finding more useful sources for you about the history, [ http://search.lib.unc.edu/search?R=UNCb4457971] this is a link to the location of a book in davis, I have NO idea if it deals strongly with autism, but it wouldn’t hurt to check out. It came up in a few searches in the database.

Contributor Note I made a couple of minor edits today:

Put in a new heading regarding related instruments. This in response to the reviewer above who requested this information. On of the instruments, the ADOS, was actually already included, but put in the "reliabilty" section which was confusing. The other is the SCQ. All three intruments are by the same core authors, Sir Michael Rutter and Catherine Lord, and were designed to be complimentary, so this seemed an appropriate change.

I also changed the word "determined" to "indicate" as it relates to how ADI-R cut points relate to diagnosis. This is a sensitive issue in psychology and medicine. A "diagnosis" is a complete, professional judgment and should always be based on a complete and varied set of information. The ADI-R in conjunction with the ADOS may provide a most authoritative set of information, but the results turn into a diagnosis only when a fully qualified professional incorporates them into a diagnostic statement that may well also incorporate findings from other instruments (e.g., an adaptive behavior scale such as the Vineland or ABAS).

As a finer point, the authors are concerned that people not treat the instrument "cut points" as rigid determinants. The cutpoints were chosen based on very extensive, professionally reviewed and published research. They optimize, to differing degrees, the sensitivity of the evaluation (the power to give high scores to those actually affected by Autism Spectrum Disorder, or ASDs) and the selectivity of the evaluation (the power to discriminate, assign a low score to, those not affected by ASDs). Even in a research context, cutpoints will produce differing rates of sensitivity and selectivity, depending on the base rates in the samples tested, among other factors. And in a clinical setting, where a single individual is evaluated, these cutpoints should always be considered advisory (substantial, based on the best available research, not to be taken lightly, but nevertheless to be filtered through professional judgment).

In an article like the present one, intended for a wide audience, these issues are difficult, but important. People want, need, and deserve specific concrete information. But with an instrument like the ADI-R, they also need some assistance in developing a context that allows the specific information to have a well-grounded meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plskmn (talk • contribs) 18:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Plskmn (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Autism Diagnostic Interview. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]