Parental age and autism severity in the Rhode Island Consortium for Autism Research and Treatment ( RI‐CART ) study

Abstract Introduction Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often experience sleep problems. A reliance on case-control studies rather than dimensional samples limit our ability to understand how sleep problems distinguish diagnosis and severity of ASD. To address this need, we present preliminary findings from a large community sample of individuals with heterogeneous autism phenotypes. Methods All participants (≤ 21 years) were selected from the Rhode Island Consortium for Autism Research and Treatment (RI-CART) (final n= 977; 233F; 11.27±4.13 years), a public-private-academic registry of families in Rhode Island affected by ASD-like symptoms. Participants completed the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, 2nd Edition to confirm the presence of diagnosable ASD. Each caretaker also completed dimensional measures of functional impairment: Social Responsiveness Scale, 2nd edition and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale (2nd/3rd editions). Caretakers were asked whether the participant suffered current/past sleep problems: yes/no. All analyses are adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, caregiver education, and scale-version (e.g., 2nd/3rd ed., where applicable). Results Endorsement of sleep problems distinguished ASD diagnosis: a confirmed diagnosis of ASD was associated with greater prevalence of sleep problems compared to ASD diagnosis (OR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.05,2.38; p = .028). Across the sample, endorsement of sleep problems was associated with impairments in adaptive behavior (b = -4.73; 95% CI: -7.47,-2.00045; p = .001) and social responsiveness (b = 6.72; 95% CI: 3.27,10.16; p < .001). Conclusion These data from a heterogenous community sample provide evidence for a link of sleep to the phenomenology of ASD. While the search for better diagnostic indicators of ASD continues, we recommend that clinicians consider a brief assessment of sleep behaviors of patients with such neurodevelopmental conditions as autism. Support Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative, Hassenfeld Child Health Innovation Institute at Brown University. K01MH109854 (JMS), NIGMS Advance CTR (JMS). KNAW Ter Meulen Grant (MEKV).

Download Full-text

What is taken for granted in autism research?

Behavioral and Brain Sciences ◽

10.1017/s0140525x1800225x ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 42 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Michele Ilana Friedner

Keyword(s):

Research Methodologies ◽

Communicative Practices ◽

Autism Research ◽

Autistic People ◽

The Social ◽

New Research

Abstract This commentary focuses on three points: the need to consider semiotic ideologies of both researchers and autistic people, questions of commensurability, and problems with “the social” as an analytical concept. It ends with a call for new research methodologies that are not deficit-based and that consider a broad range of linguistic and non-linguistic communicative practices.

Download Full-text

Applying Item Response Theory Modeling to Identify Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder

Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research ◽

10.1044/2020_jslhr-19-00284 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 63 (6) ◽

pp. 1916-1932 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Haiying Yuan ◽

Christine Dollaghan

Keyword(s):

Item Response Theory ◽

Item Response ◽

Sensitivity And Specificity ◽

Social Communication ◽

National Database ◽

Communication Disorder ◽

Social Communication Questionnaire ◽

Autism Research ◽

The Social ◽

Pragmatic Communication

Purpose No diagnostic tools exist for identifying social (pragmatic) communication disorder (SPCD), a new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition category for individuals with social communication deficits but not the repetitive, restricted behaviors and interests (RRBIs) that would qualify them for a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We explored the value of items from a widely used screening measure of ASD for distinguishing SPCD from typical controls (TC; Aim 1) and from ASD (Aim 2). Method We applied item response theory (IRT) modeling to Social Communication Questionnaire–Lifetime ( Rutter, Bailey, & Lord, 2003 ) records available in the National Database for Autism Research. We defined records from putative SPCD ( n = 54), ASD ( n = 278), and TC ( n = 274) groups retrospectively, based on National Database for Autism Research classifications and Autism Diagnostic Interview–Revised responses. After assessing model assumptions, estimating model parameters, and measuring model fit, we identified items in the social communication and RRBI domains that were maximally informative in differentiating the groups. Results IRT modeling identified a set of seven social communication items that distinguished SPCD from TC with sensitivity and specificity > 80%. A set of five RRBI items was less successful in distinguishing SPCD from ASD (sensitivity and specificity < 70%). Conclusion The IRT modeling approach and the Social Communication Questionnaire–Lifetime item sets it identified may be useful in efforts to construct screening and diagnostic measures for SPCD.

Download Full-text

Rhode Island Seeks Salary Supplement in New Year

ASHA Leader ◽

10.1044/leader.scm.08012003.3 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

pp. 3-11

Keyword(s):

Rhode Island

Download Full-text

Rhode Island Speech-Language-Hearing Association

ASHA Leader ◽

10.1044/leader.stsp.22012017.68 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 22 (1) ◽

pp. 68-68

Keyword(s):

Rhode Island

Download Full-text

Use of the AMA Guides in State Workers' Compensation Systems: 2009 Update

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2009.marapr02 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 14 (2) ◽

pp. 13-16

Author(s):

Christopher R. Brigham ◽

Jenny Walker

Keyword(s):

New York ◽

North Carolina ◽

South Carolina ◽

South Dakota ◽

Rhode Island ◽

Workers Compensation ◽

Fourth Edition ◽

Sixth Edition ◽

Specific Guideline ◽

Compensation Systems

Abstract The AMAGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) is the most widely used basis for determining impairment and is used in state workers’ compensation systems, federal systems, automobile casualty, and personal injury, as well as by the majority of state workers’ compensation jurisdictions. Two tables summarize the edition of the AMA Guides used and provide information by state. The fifth edition (2000) is the most commonly used edition: California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Vermont, and Washington. Eleven states use the sixth edition (2007): Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wyoming. Eight states still commonly make use of the fourth edition (1993): Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia. Two states use the Third Edition, Revised (1990): Colorado and Oregon. Connecticut does not stipulate which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Six states use their own state specific guidelines (Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin), and six states do not specify a specific guideline (Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Virginia). Statutes may or may not specify which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Some states use their own guidelines for specific problems and use the Guides for other issues.

Download Full-text