Construct Validity of the Autism Impact Measure (AIM)

Mazurek, Micah O.; Carlson, Coleen D.; Baker-Ericzén, Mary J.; Butter, Eric; Norris, Megan; Kanne, Stephen M.

doi:10.1007/s10803-018-3462-8

Cited by 24 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We summed frequency and impact scores for each of the 29 items which are needed to create the 5 domain scores proposed by the scale developers (Mazurek et al 2018 ). We then fitted a 5-factor solution on those 29 items with Varimax rotation.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Autism impact measure (AIM) is a caregiver-reported questionnaire, designed to be used in clinical trials and clinical practice to assess effectiveness of interventions in Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD; Kanne et al 2014 ; Mazurek et al 2018 ). It consists of 41 items, and each is rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale for both frequency and impact.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Social responsiveness scale: SRS-2; Constantino and Gruber 2012 ). The AIM, in contrast, has been shown to exhibit 5 “theoretically and empirically meaningful” symptom domains, namely; Repetitive Behavior, Communication, Atypical Behavior, Social Reciprocity and Peer Interaction (Mazurek et al 2018 ). The domain scores utilize only 29 of the 41 items, while the total score still builds on all items.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the AIM has shown to have good test–retest reliability, cross-informant reliability and convergent validity with other scales (Kanne et al 2014 ; Mazurek et al 2018 ), other important validation questions remain untested. Importantly, the ability of the AIM to detect differences between known subgroups of individuals with ASD has not been demonstrated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Psychometric Validation of the Autism Impact Measure (AIM)

Houghton

Monz

Law

et al. 2019

J Autism Dev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Autism impact measure (AIM) is a caregiver-reported questionnaire assessing autism symptom frequency and impact in children, previously shown to have good test–retest reliability, convergent validity and structural validity. This study extended previous work by exploring the AIM’s ability to discriminate between ‘known-groups’ of children, and estimating thresholds for clinically important responses. Data were collected online and electronically on computer and mobile devices; hence, it was also possible to confirm other psychometric properties of the AIM in this format. This study provides confirmatory and additional psychometric validation of the AIM. The AIM offers a valid, quick and inexpensive method for caregivers to report core symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) including communication deficits, difficulties with social interactions and repetitive behaviors. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10803-019-04011-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Psychometric Validation of the Autism Impact Measure (AIM)

Houghton

Monz

Law

et al. 2019

J Autism Dev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet these currently available assessment tools were not necessarily designed to be sensitive to treatment‐related change, especially over relatively short periods of time (i.e., 3–12‐month intervention trials). While the development of such behavioral measures is under way [e.g., Fletcher‐Watson & McConachie, ; Grzadzinski et al, ; Mazurek et al, ], there are no currently accepted “gold standard” tools for measuring treatment outcome in clinical trials for ASD. Such standards would allow for pooled findings across studies and advance science in the development of the most effective treatments [Dawson, ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of Eye Tracking as a Biomarker of Treatment Outcome in a Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial for Young Children with Autism

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a pressing need for objective, quantifiable outcome measures in intervention trials for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The current study investigated the use of eye tracking as a biomarker of treatment response in the context of a pilot randomized clinical trial of treatment for young children with ASD. Participants included 28 children with ASD, aged 18-48 months, who were randomized to one of two conditions: Pivotal Response Intervention for Social Motivation (PRISM) or community treatment as usual (TAU). Eye-tracking and behavioral assessment of developmental functioning were administered at Time 1 (prior to randomization) and at Time 2 (after 6 months of intervention). Two well-established eye-tracking paradigms were used to measure social attention: social preference and face scanning. As a context for understanding relationships between social attention and developmental ability, we first examined how scanning patterns at Time 1 were associated with concurrent developmental functioning and compared to those of 23 agematched typically developing (TD) children. Changes in scanning patterns from Time 1 to Time 2 were then compared between PRISM and TAU groups and associated with behavioral change over time. Results showed that the social preference paradigm differentiated children with ASD from TD children. In addition, attention during face scanning was associated with language and adaptive communication skills at Time 1 and change in language skills from Time 1 to Time 2. These findings highlight the importance of examining targeted biomarkers that measure unique aspects of child functioning and that are well-matched to proposed mechanisms of change. Autism Res 2019, 12: 779-793.Lay Summary: Biomarkers have the potential to provide important information about how and why early interventions effect positive change for young children with ASD. The current study suggests that eye-tracking measures of social attention can be used to track change in specific areas of development, such as language, and points to the need for targeted eye-tracking paradigms designed to measure specific behavioral changes. Such biomarkers could inform the development of optimal, individualized, and adaptive interventions for young children with ASD.

show abstract

Treatment patterns in children with autism in the United States

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children with autism receive different types of non‐drug treatments. We aimed to describe caregiver‐reported pattern of care and its variability by geography and healthcare coverage in a US‐wide sample of children aged 3–17 years. We recruited caregivers from the Simons Foundation Powering Autism Research for Knowledge (SPARK) cohort. Two online questionnaires (non‐drug treatment, Autism Impact Measure) were completed in September/October 2017. Primary outcome measures were caregiver‐reported types and intensities of treatments (behavioral, developmental/relationship, speech and language (SLT), occupational, psychological, “other”; parent/caregiver training) in the previous 12 months. Main explanatory variables were geography and type of healthcare coverage. We investigated associations between the type/intensity of treatments and geography (metropolitan/nonmetropolitan) or coverage (Medicaid vs privately insured by employer) using regression analysis. Caregivers ( n = 5,122) were mainly mothers (92.1%) with mean ( SD ) age of 39.0 (7.3) years. Mean child age was 9.1 (3.9) years; mostly males (80.0%). Almost all children received at least one intervention (96.0%). Eighty percent received SLT or occupational therapy, while 52.0% received both. Behavioral therapy and SLT were significantly more frequent and more intense in metropolitan than in nonmetropolitan areas. No consistently significant associations were seen between healthcare coverage and frequency or intensity of interventions. At least one barrier such as “waiting list” and “no coverage” was reported by 44.8%. In conclusion, in children sampled from SPARK, we observed differences between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, while we did not find significant differences between those privately insured versus Medicaid. Autism Res 2019, 12: 517–526 © 2019 The Authors. Autism Research published by International Society for Autism Research published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Lay Summary The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry recommends the use of multiple treatment modalities in autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We wanted to understand what types of treatment children (aged 3–17 years) with ASD receive in the United States, how and where the treatments take place and for how long. We invited caregivers from Simons Foundation Powering Autism Research for Knowledge (“SPARK ,” https://sparkforautism.org/ ) to complete the study questions online. Participants reported on utilization of conventional, non‐drug treatments for ASD, including behavioral interventions, developmental/relationship interventions, speech and language therapy (SLT), occupational therapy, psychological therapy, and parent/caregiver training. People that completed the study ( n = 5,122) were primarily mothers of the child with ASD (92%); most of the children were boys (80%). ...

show abstract

Construct Validity of the Autism Impact Measure (AIM)

Cited by 24 publications

References 35 publications

Psychometric Validation of the Autism Impact Measure (AIM)

Psychometric Validation of the Autism Impact Measure (AIM)

The Use of Eye Tracking as a Biomarker of Treatment Outcome in a Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial for Young Children with Autism

Treatment patterns in children with autism in the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About