Rachel Kent

Our panel of nurses and healthcare professionals consider a topical nursing issue and share their views in a personal capacity only

This study describes social, mental health, and quality of life outcomes in early adulthood, and examines childhood predictors in the Special Needs and Autism Project (SNAP), a longitudinal population‐based cohort. Young autistic adults face variable but often substantial challenges across many areas of life. Prediction of outcomes is important to set expectations and could lead to the development of targeted early intervention. Autistic children were enrolled at age 12 and parents reported outcomes 11 years later when their children were age 23 (n = 121). Thirty six percent of autistic adults were in competitive employment or education and 54% had frequent contact with friends. Only 5% of autistic adults were living independently, and 37% required overnight care. Moderate or severe anxiety and depression symptoms were found for 11% and 12% of young adults, respectively. Subjective quality of life was similar to UK averages except for social relationships. Using childhood IQ, autism traits and adaptive functioning meaningful predictions can be made of living situation, employment and education and physical health. Prediction was poor for friendships, mental health outcomes and other aspects of quality of life. Our results suggest that although young autistic adults face challenges across normative, social outcomes, they may be faring better in regard to mental health or quality of life. Childhood IQ, autism traits and adaptive functioning are most useful for predicting outcomes. After accounting for these factors, childhood measurements of behavioral and emotional problems and language offered little improvement in prediction of adult outcomes.

Anxiety is a prevalent and impairing co-morbidity among individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), yet assessment measures, including screening tools, are seldom validated with autism samples. We explored the psychometric properties of the child and parent reports of the Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale (SCAS) and the Screen for Anxiety Related Disorder-71 (SCARED-71) with 49 males with ASD (10–16 years, 63% co-occurring anxiety). Both measures had excellent internal consistency and fair-good parent–child agreement. The SCAS has a higher proportion of items evaluating observable behaviors. Predictive power of the measures did not differ. Higher cut-points in the parent reports (SCARED only) and lower cut-points in the child reports may enhance prediction in this sample. Choice of measure and cut-points should be considered alongside intended purpose.

Many young people with autism spectrum disorder display ‘challenging behaviours’, characterised by externalising behaviour and self-injurious behaviours. These behaviours can have a negative impact on a young person’s well-being, family environment and educational achievement. However, the development of effective interventions requires greater knowledge of autism spectrum disorder–specific models of challenging behaviours. Autism spectrum disorder populations are found to demonstrate impairments in different cognitive domains, namely social domains, such as theory of mind and emotion recognition, but also non-social domains such as executive functioning and sensory or perceptual processing. Parent-rated self-injurious behaviour and externalising behaviours, and neurocognitive performance were assessed in a population-derived sample of 100 adolescents with autism spectrum disorder. Structural equation modelling was used to estimate associations between cognitive domains (theory of mind, emotion recognition, executive functioning and perceptual processing) and self-injurious behaviour and externalising behaviours. Poorer theory of mind was associated with increased self-injurious behaviour, whereas poorer perceptual processing was associated with increased externalising behaviours. These associations remained when controlling for language ability. This is the first analysis to examine how a wide range of neurocognitive domains relate to challenging behaviours and suggests specific domains that may be important targets in the development of interventions in adolescents with autism spectrum disorder.

Background: Introduction of proposed criteria for DSM‐5 Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) has raised concerns that some individuals currently meeting diagnostic criteria for Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD; DSM‐IV‐TR/ICD‐10) will not qualify for a diagnosis under the proposed changes. To date, reports of sensitivity and specificity of the new criteria have been inconsistent across studies. No study has yet considered how changes at the ‘sub domain’ level might affect overall sensitivity and specificity, and few have included individuals of different ages and ability levels. Methods: A set of DSM‐5 ASD algorithms were developed using items from the Diagnostic Interview for Social and Communication Disorders (DISCO). The number of items required for each DSM‐5 subdomain was defined either according to criteria specified by DSM‐5 (Initial Algorithm), a statistical approach (Youden J Algorithm), or to minimise the number of false positives while maximising sensitivity (Modified Algorithm). The algorithms were designed, tested and compared in two independent samples (Sample 1, N = 82; Sample 2, N = 115), while sensitivity was assessed across age and ability levels in an additional dataset of individuals with an ICD‐10 PDD diagnosis (Sample 3, N = 190). Results: Sensitivity was highest in the Initial Algorithm, which had the poorest specificity. Although Youden J had excellent specificity, sensitivity was significantly lower than in the Modified Algorithm, which had both good sensitivity and specificity. Relaxing the domain A rules improved sensitivity of the Youden J Algorithm, but it remained less sensitive than the Modified Algorithm. Moreover, this was the only algorithm with variable sensitivity across age. All versions of the algorithm performed well across ability level. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that good levels of both sensitivity and specificity can be achieved for a diagnostic algorithm adhering to the DSM‐5 criteria that is suitable across age and ability level.