TABLE 5

Performance of M-CHAT and M-CHAT/F Screens Predicting ASD or Suspected ASD Diagnosis

VariableNaRatio (95% CI)z Test, PTOST
z1 Pz2P
PPVb.001.94<.001
 M-CHAT980.57 (0.47–0.67)
 PCP M-CHAT/F980.78 (0.69–0.86)
PPVc.30.29.004
 PCP M-CHAT/F980.78 (0.69–0.86)
 AC M-CHAT/F970.71 (0.62–0.80)
Sensitivityc.380.30.01
 PCP M-CHAT/F980.55 (0.46–0.65)
 AC M-CHAT/F970.49 (0.39–0.59)
Specificityc.43.20.008
 PCP M-CHAT/F980.79 (0.70–0.87)
 AC M-CHAT/F970.74 (0.65–0.83)
Accuracyc.24.40.005
 PCP M-CHAT/F980.60 (0.56–0.75)
 AC M-CHAT/F970.57 (0.47–0.67)
  • Table includes suspected ASD/new phenotype. Comparisons were made with 2-tailed z test and TOST, Δ = 0.1 unit of proportion. Only patients with a positive screen on the M-CHAT are included in this sample. CI, confidence interval.

  • a One patient did not have a complete AC M-CHAT/F (Fig 1).

  • b Relevant difference.

  • c Equivalence.