IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0085268.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systematic Review of the Properties of Tools Used to Measure Outcomes in Anxiety Intervention Studies for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah Wigham
  • Helen McConachie

Abstract

Background: Evidence about relevant outcomes is required in the evaluation of clinical interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). However, to date, the variety of outcome measurement tools being used, and lack of knowledge about the measurement properties of some, compromise conclusions regarding the most effective interventions. Objectives: This two-stage systematic review aimed to identify the tools used in studies evaluating interventions for anxiety for high-functioning children with ASD in middle childhood, and then to evaluate the tools for their appropriateness and measurement properties. Methods: Electronic databases including Medline, PsychInfo, Embase, and the Cochrane database and registers were searched for anxiety intervention studies for children with ASD in middle childhood. Articles examining the measurement properties of the tools used were then searched for using a methodological filter in PubMed, and the quality of the papers evaluated using the COSMIN checklist. Results: Ten intervention studies were identified in which six tools measuring anxiety and one of overall symptom change were used as primary outcomes. One further tool was included as it is recommended for standard use in UK children's mental health services. Sixty three articles on the properties of the tools were evaluated for the quality of evidence, and the quality of the measurement properties of each tool was summarised. Conclusions: Overall three questionnaires were found robust in their measurement properties, the Spence Children's Anxiety Scale, its revised version – the Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale, and also the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders. Crucially the articles on measurement properties provided almost no evidence on responsiveness to change, nor on the validity of use of the tools for evaluation of interventions for children with ASD. PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42012002684.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah Wigham & Helen McConachie, 2014. "Systematic Review of the Properties of Tools Used to Measure Outcomes in Anxiety Intervention Studies for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0085268
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085268
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0085268
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0085268&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0085268?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ian Sinha & Leanne Jones & Rosalind L Smyth & Paula R Williamson, 2008. "A Systematic Review of Studies That Aim to Determine Which Outcomes to Measure in Clinical Trials in Children," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-10, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mike Clarke, 2008. "Standardising Outcomes in Paediatric Clinical Trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-2, April.
    2. Elizabeth Gargon & Binu Gurung & Nancy Medley & Doug G Altman & Jane M Blazeby & Mike Clarke & Paula R Williamson, 2014. "Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-12, June.
    3. Sarah L Gorst & Elizabeth Gargon & Mike Clarke & Jane M Blazeby & Douglas G Altman & Paula R Williamson, 2016. "Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, January.
    4. Ian P Sinha & Paula R Williamson & Rosalind L Smyth, 2009. "Outcomes in Clinical Trials of Inhaled Corticosteroids for Children with Asthma Are Narrowly Focussed on Short Term Disease Activity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(7), pages 1-8, July.
    5. Ian P Sinha & Rosalind L Smyth & Paula R Williamson, 2011. "Using the Delphi Technique to Determine Which Outcomes to Measure in Clinical Trials: Recommendations for the Future Based on a Systematic Review of Existing Studies," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-5, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0085268. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.