Measuring repetitive behaviors as a treatment endpoint in youth with autism spectrum disorder
Measuring repetitive behaviors as a treatment endpoint in youth with autism spectrum disorder
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/1362361313510069
复制
发表时间：
2015-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
5.2
通讯作者：
Dawson, Geraldine
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Scahill, Lawrence;Aman, Michael G.;Dawson, Geraldine
患有自闭症谱系障碍的儿童和青少年的兴趣受限和重复行为在类型、频率和强度上存在很大差异。它们可能会带来污名并干扰更具建设性的活动。因此，受限的兴趣和重复的行为可能成为干预的目标。已经开发了几种标准化工具来评估自闭症谱系障碍人群的受限兴趣和重复行为，但心理测量评估的严格程度是可变的。本文评估了可用措施作为临床试验结果措施的准备情况。自闭症之声基金会组建了一个专家小组，研究用于衡量患有自闭症谱系障碍的青少年的受限兴趣和重复行为的可用工具。该小组在 14 个月内每月举行电话会议和两次面对面会议，以制定和应用可用工具的评估标准。对 24 种仪器进行了评估，其中 5 种被认为适合在临床试验中用作结果测量。理想情况下，主要结局指标应与临床目标相关、可靠且有效，并涵盖症状领域而不会给受试者带来负担。该报告的目标是促进资助机构、制药公司和临床研究人员就现有结果指标的优缺点达成共识。
Restricted interests and repetitive behaviors vary widely in type, frequency, and intensity among children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder. They can be stigmatizing and interfere with more constructive activities. Accordingly, restricted interests and repetitive behaviors may be a target of intervention. Several standardized instruments have been developed to assess restricted interests and repetitive behaviors in the autism spectrum disorder population, but the rigor of psychometric assessment is variable. This article evaluated the readiness of available measures for use as outcome measures in clinical trials. The Autism Speaks Foundation assembled a panel of experts to examine available instruments used to measure restricted interests and repetitive behaviors in youth with autism spectrum disorder. The panel held monthly conference calls and two face-to-face meetings over 14 months to develop and apply evaluative criteria for available instruments. Twenty-four instruments were evaluated and five were considered appropriate with conditions for use as outcome measures in clinical trials. Ideally, primary outcome measures should be relevant to the clinical target, be reliable and valid, and cover the symptom domain without being burdensome to subjects. The goal of the report was to promote consensus across funding agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and clinical investigators about advantages and disadvantages of existing outcome measures.