TABLE 4

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

VariableNaRatio (95% CI)z Test, PTOST
z1 Pz2P
PPVb.01.86<.001
 M-CHAT980.40 (0.30–0.50)
 PCP M-CHAT/F980.58 (0.48–0.67)
PPVc.49.24.02
 PCP M-CHAT/F980.58 (0.48–0.67)
 AC M-CHAT/F970.53 (0.43–0.63)
Sensitivityc.37.30.01
 PCP M-CHAT/F980.59 (0.49–0.69)
 AC M-CHAT/F970.53 (0.43–0.63)
Specificityc.80.10.04
 PCP M-CHAT/F980.71 (0.62–0.80)
 AC M-CHAT/F970.69 (0.60–0.79)
Accuracyc.62.17.02
 PCP M-CHAT/F980.67 (0.57–0.76)
 AC M-CHAT/F970.63 (0.53–0.73)
  • 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.