ORI GI NAL PAPER

Comparison of ICD-10R, DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5 in an Adult

Autism Spectrum Disorder Diagnostic Clinic
C. Ellie Wilson

Nicola Gillan

Deborah Spain

Dene Robertson

Gedeon Roberts

Clodagh M. Murphy

Stefanos Maltezos

Janneke Zinkstok

Katie Johnston

Christina Dardani

Chris Ohlsen

P. Quinton Deeley

Michael Craig

Maria A. Mendez

Francesca Happe
Declan G. M. Murphy
Published online: 16 March 2013
Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract An Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) diagnosis
is often used to access services. We investigated whether
ASD diagnostic outcome varied when DSM-5 was used
compared to ICD-10R and DSM-IV-TR in a clinical
sample of 150 intellectually able adults. Of those diagnosed
with an ASD using ICD-10R, 56 % met DSM-5 ASD
criteria. A further 19 % met DSM-5 (draft) criteria for
Social Communication Disorder. Of those diagnosed with
Autistic Disorder/Asperger Syndrome on DSM-IV-TR,
78 % met DSM-5 ASD criteria. Sensitivity of DSM-5 was
signicantly increased by reducing the number of criteria
required for a DSM-5 diagnosis, or by rating uncertain
criteria as present, without sacricing specicity.
Reduced rates of ASD diagnosis may mean some ASD
individuals will be unable to access clinical services.
Keywords Autism Spectrum Disorder Diagnosis
Prevalence DSM-5
Introduction
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental
disorder with a prevalence currently estimated at 1 in 80
individuals (Pinborough-Zimmerman et al. 2012). In recent
years there has been a rise in reported rates of ASD. The
reason for this is unclear, but changes in diagnostic practice
are likely to have contributed (Fombonne 2005). Also, a
formal diagnosis of an ASD is often used as a gatekeeper
for services and support. Therefore changes in diagnostic
practice may have important implicationsboth for clini-
cal prevalence rates and for an individuals care options.
An Autism Spectrum Disorder is diagnosed on the basis
of three domains: impaired social interaction, abnormal
communication, and restricted and repetitive behaviours
and interests. Using current diagnostic criteria in the
International Classication of Diseases (ICD-10R; World
Health Organization 1993) and the Diagnostic and Statis-
tical Manual (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Associ-
ation 2000), ASD comes under the umbrella term of
Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD) and an individ-
ual may be dened as having one of four diagnostic sub-
types according to the range of symptoms and the presence/
absence of factors such as developmental language delay
and intellectual disability (i.e., Asperger Syndrome,
Childhood Autism/Autistic Disorder, Atypical Autism,
Francesca Happe and Professor Declan Murphy are joint senior
authors.
Data from this manuscript were presented at the International Meeting
for Autism Research, Toronto, Canada, May 2012.
Francesca Happe is part of the DSM-5 workgroup on
neurodevelopmental disorders.
C. E. Wilson (&) N. Gillan D. Spain G. Roberts
C. M. Murphy S. Maltezos J. Zinkstok C. Dardani
P. Q. Deeley M. Craig M. A. Mendez D. G. M. Murphy
Department of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Science,
Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College, London SE5 8AF, UK
e-mail: ellie.wilson@kcl.ac.uk
C. E. Wilson N. Gillan D. Spain D. Robertson
G. Roberts C. M. Murphy S. Maltezos J. Zinkstok
K. Johnston C. Ohlsen P. Q. Deeley M. Craig
M. A. Mendez D. G. M. Murphy
Behavioural Genetics Clinic, Maudsley Hospital, South London
and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London SE5 8AZ, UK
F. Happe
Department of Social Genetic Developmental and Psychiatry
Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College,
London SE5 8AF, UK
1 3
J Autism Dev Disord (2013) 43:25152525
DOI 10.1007/s10803-013-1799-6
PDD-unspecied). There are, however, problems with
current diagnostic algorithms. First, distinguishing the
social and communication domains is somewhat arbi-
trary since almost any example of communication is social
and vice versa, and, several social and communication
symptoms are covered by multiple criteria. For instance,
behaviors indicative of poor socio-emotional reciprocity
are currently covered in three criteriapoor emotional
reciprocity (social domain), lack of sharing enjoyment and
interests (social domain), and poor reciprocal conversation
(communication domain) (see Appendix 1). Second, there
is a lack of evidence for signicant differences between
ASD diagnostic subtypes (once IQ matched) in etiology,
neuropsychological prole, treatment or outcome, and poor
clinical agreement when diagnosing (Ozonoff 2012).
Unclear guidance on how to dene people who have
symptoms of ASD but do not meet full criteria also con-
tributes to disagreement between clinicians.
To address these problems, the Neurodevelop-
mental Disorders Workgroup, convened by the American
Psychiatric Association (APA), has proposed a number of
signicant changes to the diagnostic criteria for ASD
(Happe 2011; Swedo et al. 2012). The social and com-
munication impairment criteria will be combined into a
single set, thus reducing the current triad of impairments
to two domains. In the social and communication domain
there will be three criteria, instead of the current total of
eight, and each criteria will include several examples of
behaviors from across the lifespan that might indicate the
presence of that symptom. Next, the previously distinct
diagnostic subtypes will be collapsed into a single category
of Autism Spectrum Disorder. People who do not present
with the full range of symptoms will no longer be eligible
for an ASD diagnosis, since there is no atypical or not
otherwise specied category (as in ICD-10R, DSM-IV-
TR). Instead, a new diagnostic category called Social
Communication Disorder (SCD) has been proposed. This is
dened as being outside the autism spectrum, but will
provide diagnostic coverage for those individuals with
symptoms in the social-communication domain, but who
have never displayed repetitive, restricted behaviours or
interests. The intention is that the changes to the diagnostic
algorithm will reduce the wide variability between indi-
viduals on the autistic spectrum, by more clearly dening
the symptoms required for diagnosis and by reducing the
potential for clinicians to disagree.
The effect of the proposed changes on diagnostic out-
comes has been investigated in children and adolescents
with several studies reporting that the specicity of the
proposed DSM-5 criteria is good, but sensitivity is rela-
tively poor, when judged against current ICD-10R or
DSM-IV-TR criteria (Frazier et al. 2012; Matson et al.
2012; Mattila et al. 2011; McPartland et al. 2012; Taheri
and Perry 2012; Worley and Matson 2012). This high-
lights a key concern of some: that the new criteria will fail
to capture individuals currently receiving an ASD diag-
nosis who are on the broader spectrum according to
DSM-IV-TR or ICD-10R criteria (e.g., Pervasive Devel-
opmental Disorder-not otherwise specied; PDD-NOS).
As a consequence it is feared by some that these indi-
viduals will be denied access to services. Reassuringly,
however, a large study of children diagnosed within the
PDD category according to DSM-IV-TR suggested that
sensitivity of DSM-5 is very good (0.91) although sensi-
tivity in this study was much lower (0.53) (Huerta et al.
2012).
The effect of the proposed changes for adults has
received relatively little attention. This is of importance
because ASD is a lifelong condition therefore most people
with ASD are adults. Moreover, the number of individuals
presenting for rst diagnosis in adulthood is rapidly
increasing: at the National ASD assessment service at the
South London and Maudsley in the UK, the number of
ASD assessments per month increased fourfold between
2005 and 2010 (Murphy et al. 2011). Further, diagnosis is
particularly challenging in this group because a develop-
mental history is often unavailable and/or unreliable; and
presentation is frequently complicated by additional
mental health conditions (Carpenter 2012). The only prior
study that explored the agreement between current and
proposed ASD criteria in adults included only individuals
with (mostly profound) intellectual disability living in
residential centers (Matson et al. 2012); they reported that
approximately one third of the individuals who met DSM-
IV-TR criteria no longer met them using the draft DSM-5.
This study was a valuable rst step. However, the
majority of the ASD population does not have profound
intellectual impairment (Baird et al. 2000) and such
people are assessed within mental health or social/edu-
cational services. Also, it is unknown what proportion of
individuals would qualify for the new, alternative diag-
nosis of SCD.
Our primary aim, therefore, was to investigate how
diagnostic outcomes of the DSM-5 algorithm differed from
both ICD-10R and the DSM-IV-TR when applied in a
clinical health service; and to compare all three algorithms
to so-called gold-standard research diagnostic assessment
tools (the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R;
Lord et al. 1994) and Autism Diagnostic Observation
Schedule (ADOS-G; Lord et al. 2000). Our secondary aims
were to investigate whether diagnostic outcomes were
affected by participant characteristics (age, sex, IQ, pres-
ence of additional mental health conditions), or alterations
to the formulation of the proposed algorithm. Specically,
the impact of reducing the number of criteria required for a
formal diagnosis was examined, and also the treatment of
2516 J Autism Dev Disord (2013) 43:25152525
1 3
criteria where the clinician was uncertain or had insuf-
cient information to code the item.
Method
Participants
Participants included 158 individuals consecutively asses-
sed for ASD in a specialist National tertiary ASD diag-
nostic clinic for adults between January and May 2011. The
clinic is situated within the South London and Maudsley
NHS Foundation Trust. People are typically referred by
their local family physician/general practitioner (GP) or
consultant psychiatrist for a second opinion. In 8 cases
diagnosis was inconclusive due to a history of acquired
head injury or the presence of severe psychotic symptoms
during assessment. Data from these cases were excluded
from the study. The remaining 150 participants were aged
1865 years, with a mean age of 31 years. There were 110
males (mean age 32 years) and 40 females (mean age
31 years). Seventy-three patients already had a diagnosis of
a mental health condition (most commonly depression,
anxiety, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), or
Attention Decit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)), and
only 7 of these had previously been diagnosed with ASD.
Measures
The ADI-R and ADOS-G are gold-standard research
diagnostic assessment tools for ASD. The ADI-R is a semi-
structured interview with the parent or caregiver assessing
ASD traits during childhood, and the ADOS-G is assess-
ment completed with the patient assessing current traits of
ASD. High levels of testretest reliability have been
reported for both the ADI-R (in all domains, j[0.6; Hill
et al. 2001), and the ADOS-G (in social and communica-
tion domains, j[0.7; Lord et al. 2000). Well-validated
self-rating questionnaires were used to assess levels of
other mental health conditions. The Obsessive Compulsive
Inventory-Revised (OCI-R; Foa et al. 2002) was used to
assess traits of OCD, and has high internal consistency
when used among patients with OCD (a = .83) and
patients with other anxiety disorders (a = .88), (Abramo-
witz and Deacon 2006). Symptoms of ADHD were asses-
sed using the Barkleys Current and Childhood Symptom
Scales (Barkley and Murphy 2005), which is a self- and
informant-rated questionnaire used widely in clinical
assessments for ADHD in adults (Barkley 2011). Finally,
the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS; Zig-
mond and Snaith 1983) was used to assess levels of anxiety
and depression, and has high levels of internal consistency
when used in general population adult sample, (a = .90)
(Lisspers et al. 1997).
Clinical Assessment
Assessment included a detailed psychiatric assessment
using ICD-10R research diagnostic criteria and, where
possible (i.e., where parents were available, able and
willing), an ADI-R. In the event that no parent was avail-
able for the ADI-R the person seeking diagnosis was asked
to undergo the ADOS-G. In some cases both assessment
tools were required to gather enough relevant information.
Seventy-one individuals were assessed using the ADI-R, 62
were assessed with the ADOS-G, and 17 were assessed
using both ADI-R and ADOS-G.
All information obtained was compiled by the multi-
disciplinary clinical teama consultant psychiatrist, junior
doctor, and ADI-R/ADOS-G administrator (nurse or psy-
chologist)who together decided whether each criterion
on the ICD-10R algorithm was fullled (see Appendix 1).
If a patient met full ICD-10R criteria (a total of at least six
symptoms must be presenteither currently or by his-
torywith at least two from the rst domain and one from
each of the second and third domains) and the symptoms
were noted before the age of 3, they were diagnosed with
Childhood Autism (if they exhibited a language delay) or
Asperger Syndrome (if there was no evidence of a lan-
guage delay). In line with ICD-10R guidelines, if a patient
exhibited some autistic symptoms but did not meet full
ICD-10R diagnostic criteria they were diagnosed with
Pervasive Developmental Disorder, unspecied (PDD-
unspecied) or Atypical Autism. For the purposes of this
study these two sub-threshold diagnostic groups were
collapsed into a single PDD-unspecied group. In some
cases it was not possible to decide condently whether or
not a symptom was present due to a lack of information, or
because information obtained from patient and parent
contradicted each other. In this event the criterion was
coded as Unclear, and the team made the clinical diag-
nostic decision based on the gestalt of the information
received. Of the 150 consecutive assessments, 113 were
diagnosed with an ASD using ICD-10R criteria. Of these,
28 participants were subtyped as having Childhood Aut-
ism, 48 Asperger Syndrome, and 37 PDD-unspecied.
Additional mental health conditions were also diagnosed
in accordance with the ICD-10R (with the exception of
adult ADHD which, in keeping with UK guidelines, was
assessed using DSM-IV-TR), and the supplementary self-
report questionnaires were used to help inform assessment
of OCD, ADHD, depression and anxiety (respectively, the
OCI-R, Barkleys Current and Childhood Symptom Scales,
and the HADS).
J Autism Dev Disord (2013) 43:25152525 2517
1 3
Where there was clinical suspicion that a participant
might have intellectual disability (F70-73 in ICD-10R) or a
signicant lacuna in a neuropsychological function, they
were referred for testing of general intellectual and exec-
utive functioning. These participants (N = 35) were tested
using the Weschler Abbreviated Intelligence Scale-III,
(WAIS III; Wechsler 1997) which revealed a mean Per-
formance IQ of 87 (SD = 16, range 55132) and a mean
Verbal IQ of 95 (SD = 18, range 60133). Mean full-scale
IQ could not be calculated in 16 participants due to large
discrepancies between Performance IQ and Verbal IQ; in
the remaining 19 mean full-scale IQ was 90 (SD = 17,
range 53129) and only 2 participants had an IQ below 70.
The remaining 115 participants, not referred for such
testing, were estimated to be in the normal range of general
intellectual function based on educational attainment,
employment, and informant report.
Procedure
For each participant the diagnostic outcome (ASD/not
ASD; ICD-10R subtype of ASD; ADI-R and ADOS-G
scores; presence of additional mental health problems) was
reviewed by the research team. Information from the
ICD-10R algorithm was used to determine whether each
criterion on the proposed DSM-5 algorithm would be sat-
ised, and this was supplemented by anonymized reports
from the ADI-R, ADOS-G, and the psychiatric interview.
Appendix 2 shows how information in the ICD-10R maps
onto the DSM-5. Each criterion could be coded as Yes,
No, or Unclear. A participant was considered to meet
criteria for ASD on the DSM-5 only when all three criteria
in A and at least 2 out of 4 criteria in B were coded as
Yes, as suggested in the criteria last posted by APA. If a
participant did not meet criteria for ASD on the DSM-5 it
was determined whether they would meet criteria for the
alternative diagnosis of Social Communication Disorder
(SCD). Re-coding was completed by pairs of researchers,
and for 40 sets of participant data the re-coding was
reviewed at consensus meetings with the whole team (10
researchers) to ensure agreement.
Data were also re-coded to complete the DSM-IV-TR
algorithm (demonstrated in Appendix 1), on which par-
ticipants could be diagnosed as either ASD (Autistic
Disorder/Asperger Syndrome) if they fullled at least six
criteria, with at least 2 in domain A and 1 from each of
domains B and C, or not ASD.
Factors affecting agreement between ICD-10R, DSM-
IV-TR and DSM-5 were also investigated. Participant
characteristics (age, sex, IQ, additional mental health
conditions) were compared between ASD positive and
negative groups, and the effect of being assessed using the
ADI-R, ADOS-G, or both, was also investigated. The
effect of altering the DSM-5 algorithm was examined in
two ways: by relaxing the number of criterion required for
diagnosis, and by considering criteria that were coded as
Unclear as either met or not met. To examine the effect of
relaxing the number of criteria required for diagnosis the
thresholds were reduced in Criteria A (from 3 to 2), or in
Criteria B (from 2 to 1), or both. To examine the effect of
including or excluding the Unclear items, the DSM-5
algorithm was re-coded by considering Unclear items to
be present. This was relevant because the DSM-5 allows
criteria to be met by history, and allowing or disallowing
the Unclear criteria is likely to be crucial in many adult
cases where multiple informants are not available.
It was hypothesized that, (a) prevalence of Childhood
Autism or Asperger Syndrome diagnosed using ICD-10R
criteria would be similar to that using DSM-IV-TR and
DSM-5, (b) most participants diagnosed with ASD on the
ICD-10R but not the DSM-5 would be diagnosed with
SCD, and (c) altering the DSM-5 algorithm would have
signicant effects on the rate of positive DSM-5 ASD
diagnosis.
Results
Conclusions of Initial Diagnostic Assessments
ICD-10R Versus DSM-5 (Table 1)
Of the 150 participants, 113 (75 %) met criteria for an ASD
according to the ICD-10R (Childhood Autism, Asperger
Syndrome or PDD-unspecied). In contrast, however,
according to the DSM-5, only 63 (42 %) met ASD criteria:
this was a highly signicant decline, v
2
(1) = 35.6,
p \0.001. A further 21 (14 %) participants met DSM-5
criteria for SCD. Overall, therefore, of those individuals
positive for ASD on ICD-10R, 74 % (84 of 113) met criteria
for ASD or SCD on DSM-5. Nevertheless, the proportion of
individuals with no diagnosis at all (ASD or SCD) remained
signicantly higher when applying the DSM-5 criteria
instead of ICD-10R (v
2
(1) = 62.5, p \0.001). None of the
participants that were ASD negative using ICD-10R met
diagnostic criteria for ASD (or SCD) according to the
DSM-5, thus specicity of the DSM-5 was 100 %.
DSM-IV-TR Versus DSM-5 (Table 1)
The rate of ASD positive diagnosis using DSM-5 (42 %)
was also signicantly lower than the rate of Autistic Dis-
order or Asperger Syndrome assessed using DSM-IV-TR
(53 %), v
2
(1) [82.5, p \0.001. Additionally, two indi-
viduals were diagnosed with ASD on the DSM-5, but not
with Autistic Disorder or Asperger Syndrome on the
2518 J Autism Dev Disord (2013) 43:25152525
1 3
DSM-IV-TR, therefore specicity of the DSM-5 according
to the DSM-IV-TR was 0.97.
Agreement with ADI-R and ADOS-G Results (Table 2)
Agreement between diagnosis according to the ICD-10R/
DSM-IV-TR/DSM-5 and outcomes of the ADI-R and
ADOS-G was calculated where this information was
available. When measured against results of the ADI-R, the
sensitivity of the ICD-10R and the DSM-IV-TR was higher
than the DSM-5 (respectively 0.97, 0.97 and 0.79; both
McNemars p = 0.07), but their specicity was marginally
lower. For the ADOS-G, sensitivity was also higher on the
ICD-10R and the DSM-IV-TR than the DSM-5 (respec-
tively 0.6, 0.7 and 0.5; McNemars p = 0.07/0.01) and
specicity was very similar.
Factors Affecting Agreement Between ICD-10R
and DSM-5
Participant Characteristics: Age, Gender, IQ, Diagnostic
Subtype and Additional Mental Health Conditions
Of the participants that were ASD positive using the ICD-
10R, there were no differences with respect to age, gender
or IQ (where available) for those individuals that were
ASD positive versus negative on the DSM-5.
There was, however, a signicant difference in rate of
DSM-5 ASD positive diagnosis between ICD-10R sub-
types, v
2
(2) = 31.58, p \0.001. Signicantly more par-
ticipants diagnosed with ICD-10R Childhood Autism or
Asperger Syndrome met DSM-5 criteria for ASD than
those in the PDD-unspecied group (Table 3, Column A).
The difference between ICD-10R dened Childhood
Autism and Asperger Syndrome was not signicant,
v
2
(1) = 1.64, p = 0.2.
With respect to additional mental health conditions, a
signicant difference was only found for OCD: higher rates
of OCD were found in the group that were ASD positive on
the DSM-5 than those that were ASD positive only on the
ICD-10R, v
2
(1) = 4.58, p = 0.03 (Fig. 1).
Table 1 Outcome of initial assessment of 150 participants according
to the ICD-10R, and outcome of data re-coded according to DSM-IV-
TR and DSM-5: % (N)
Above/below ASD
threshold
Diagnosis of below ASD
threshold participants
ASD full-
threshold
Below ASD
threshold
PDD-
unspecied or
SCD
No
diagnosis
ICD-10R,
% (N)
51 (76) 50 (74) 25 (37) 25 (37)
DSM-IV-TR,
% (N)
53 (80) 47 (70) N/A N/A
DSM-5,
% (N)
42 (63) 58 (87) 14 (21) 44 (66)
Table 2 Percentage of participants in each diagnostic group scoring above and below threshold on ADI-R and ADOS-G, and sensitivity and
specicity of each diagnostic algorithm compared to ADI-R/ADOS-G. % (N)
ADI-R below
cut-off (%)
a
ADI-R above
cut-off (%)
a
ADOS-G below
cut-off (%)
b
ADOS-G above
cut-off (%)
b
ICD-10R: Below ASD threshold (not ASD/PDD
unspecied)
96 (27) 4 (1) 75 (35) 25 (15)
ICD-10R: ASD (Asperger Syndrome/Childhood
Autism)
36 (17) 64 (30) 32 (12) 68 (25)
ICD-10R
Sensitivity: 0.97*
Specicity: 0.61
Sensitivity: 0.63*
Specicity: 0.74
DSM-IV-TR: ASD negative 96 (27) 4 (1) 75 (36) 25 (12)
DSM-IV-TR: ASD positive 36 (17) 64 (30) 28 (11) 71 (28)
DSM-IV-TR
Sensitivity: 0.97*
Specicity: 0.61
Sensitivity: 0.70**
Specicity: 0.77
DSM-5: ASD negative 83 (29) 17 (6) 64 (36) 36 (20)
DSM-5: ASD positive 38 (15) 63 (25) 36 (11) 65 (20)
DSM-5
Sensitivity: 0.81
Specicity: 0.66
Sensitivity: 0.50
Specicity: 0.77
* Difference between ICD-10R/DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5: McNemars p \0.1
** Difference between ICD-10R/DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5: McNemars p \0.05
a
ADI-R cut-off scores: Social = 10; Communication = 8; Repetitive behaviors/interests = 3
b
DOS-G cut-off scores: Communication = 3; Social interaction = 6; Communication ? Social = 10
J Autism Dev Disord (2013) 43:25152525 2519
1 3
Finally, of the participants that were ASD positive
using the ICD-10R, there was no signicant effect of
using different ASD assessment tools (ADI-R, ADOS-G,
or both) on the outcome of the DSM-5, v
2
(2) = 4.20,
p = 0.12.
Effects of Relaxing the DSM-5 Algorithm (Table 3, Column
C)
For the 113 participants that were ASD positive on the
ICD-10R, the sensitivity of the DSM-5 increased signi-
cantly (and specicity remained at 100 %) when thresholds
for Criteria A or B, or both, were relaxed (all v
2
(1) [20.0,
ps \.001).
Of the 80 participants that were ASD positive on the
DSM-IV-TR, sensitivity of the DSM-5 increased to 99 %
when thresholds A and B were both relaxed, however
specicity was signicantly reduced.
Uncertainty on the DSM-5 Algorithm: ASD Diagnostic
Outcome When Criteria Coded as Unclear Were
Considered to Be Present
Of the participants diagnosed with ASD on the ICD-10R,
74 % received a diagnosis of ASD on the DSM-5 when
criteria that were Unclear were treated as Yes; this was
a signicant increase from 56 % when Unclear was coded
as No (v
2
(1) = 51.46, p \.001). Specicity remained at
100 %.
Discussion
This is the rst study to investigate how the DSM-5 cri-
teria for ASD might perform in a specialist diagnostic
clinic for adults without signicant intellectual disabil-
itywho form a large proportion of individuals with
ASD.
Our ndings suggest that the specicity of the DSM-5
criteria, as compared to the currently used ICD-10R and
DSM-IV-TR criteria, is good. However, sensitivity is rel-
atively poor. For instance, 44 % of the participants that
received a diagnosis of an ASD according to ICD-10R did
not meet DSM-5 criteria. Similarly, 22 % of the individ-
uals that met criteria for Asperger Syndrome or Autistic
Disorder on DSM-IV-TR would not qualify for a DSM-5
Table 3 Percentage of participants that would be diagnosed with:
(A) ASD on DSM-5; (B) Social Communication Disorder (SCD) on
DSM-5; (C) ASD on DSM-5 if number of criterion required in
Criteria A was reduced from 3 to 2, and/or the number of criterion
required in Criteria B was reduced from 2 to 1 % (N)
A B C
ICD 10R/DSM-IV-TR
diagnosis
DSM-5
ASD
DSM-5
SCD
DSM-5 ASD:
relax A
DSM-5 ASD:
relax B
DSM-5 ASD:
relax A and B
ICD-10R, % (N) Not ASD, (N = 37) 0 0 0 0 0
ASD, (N = 113) 56 (63) 19 (21) 69 (78)** 70 (79)** 87 (98)**
Childhood autism, (N = 28) 82 (23) 11 (3) 86 (24) 93 (26) 96 (27)
Asperger Syndrome, (N = 48) 69 (33) 15 (7) 83 (40)* 83 (40)* 98 (47)**
PDD-unspecied, (N = 37) 19 (7) 30 (11) 38 (14)* 35 (13)* 65 (24)**
DSM-IV-TR, % (N) Not ASD, (N = 70) 3 (2) 13 (9) 14 (10)* 10 (7)* 27 (19)**
ASD, (N = 80) 77 (61) 15 (12) 85 (68)* 90 (72)** 99 (79)**
* Difference between full criteria and relaxed threshold: McNemars p \0.05
** Difference between full criteria and relaxed threshold: McNemars p \0.001
Fig. 1 Percentage of participants in ICD-10R/DSM-5 diagnostic
groups that met criteria for additional mental health conditions. GAD
General Anxiety Disorder, OCD Obsessive Compulsive Disorder,
ADHD Attention Decit Hyperactivity Disorder, None: No addi-
tional/alternative mental health condition. *p \0.05; **p \0.01
2520 J Autism Dev Disord (2013) 43:25152525
1 3
diagnosis of ASD. This is consistent with the only previous
study that investigated agreement between current and
proposed ASD criteria in intellectually disabled adults with
ASD (Matson et al. 2012), and is cause for concern since
these individuals, who have genuine difculties and are
most likely on the spectrum, may not be able to access
services available to the ASD population if the DSM-5 is
used to dene eligibility (i.e., if it is used as an entry
criteria).
The decline in sensitivity was highlighted when per-
formance of each diagnostic algorithm was measured
against results of gold-standard assessment tools. Both
the ICD-10R and DSM-IV-TR had a 97 % chance of
reporting a true ASD positive diagnosis according to the
outcome of the ADI-R, and this fell to 81 % when using the
DSM-5a marginally signicant decline. The chance of
reporting a true negative, however, was slightly better
when using the DSM-5 as compared to current diagnostic
algorithms. Comparison with the ADOS-G revealed similar
results, although there was a lower chance of true positives
across all algorithms. It should be noted the ADI-R and
ADOS-G were developed in order to align with the DSM-
IV-TR, therefore the nding that the assessment tools t
better with current algorithms than with the DSM-5 is not
entirely unexpected. Nevertheless, disagreement between
diagnostic algorithms and gold-standard research assess-
ment tools may lead to confusion in both research and
clinical settings, therefore revisions of the assessment tools
is likely to be required for use in adult populations.
Given the evidence that a signicant proportion of
individuals currently considered to be on the autism spec-
trum may not be included in the DSM-5 ASD category, it is
important to clarify what factors are associated with the
likelihood that an individual will meet criteria. Encourag-
ingly, there was no evidence of an effect of age or sex on
diagnostic outcome, suggesting no particular demographic
is more or less likely to receive an ASD diagnosis. We also
found no effect of IQ in the subset of participants for which
this information was available. This subset was a fairly
small group, therefore conclusions are drawn with caution,
however the results show no indication that higher-func-
tioning people are more likely to be missed by the proposed
DSM-5 criteria than lower functioning peoplea concern
which has been raised in recent studies with children
(McPartland et al. 2012).
In the current study, the difference in rate of DSM-5
ASD positive diagnosis between the ICD-10R subtypes of
Childhood Autism and Asperger Syndrome was non-sig-
nicant. This suggests that adults with an Asperger Syn-
drome diagnosis will be at no greater risk of missing out on
an ASD diagnosis when using DSM-5 than adults with
Childhood Autism, and supports the DSM-5 proposal to
combine these diagnoses into a single category. However,
the third ICD-10R subtypePDD-unspeciedhad a
signicantly lower rate of ASD diagnosis using DSM-5
than both of the other two diagnostic subtypes. This is not
necessarily cause for concern: people with a PDD-
unspecied diagnosis did not actually meet full diagnostic
criteria on the ICD-10R eitherinstead they showed sig-
nicant ASD traits and were considered to be on the
spectrum. What is perhaps of concern is that a quarter of
people with an ICD-10R ASD diagnosis would not qualify
for either ASD or SCD on the DSM-5, and the majority of
those affected were of the PDD-unspecied subtype. This
is the rst study to report the proportion of people that
would qualify for the new SCD diagnosis as currently
drafted, but our results suggest this alternative category,
which was intended to provide diagnostic coverage to
many of those who will not qualify for the ASD diagnosis,
may not solve the problem of the comparatively poor
sensitivity of the DSM-5 relative to ICD-10R.
The present data suggest that the sensitivity of the draft
DSM-5 criteria, compared at least to ICD-10R and DSM-
IV-TR, can be improved. Several authors have suggested
that increased sensitivity without reduced specicity might
be achieved by relaxing the proposed criteria (Frazier et al.
2012; Kapp and Neeman 2012; McPartland et al. 2012).
Our results supported this: it was found that relaxing
thresholds in DSM-5 for social communication and social
interaction (Criteria A), and/or repetitive patterns of
behaviour, interests, and activities (Criteria B) allowed the
inclusion of almost all people currently diagnosed with
Childhood Autism or Asperger Syndrome, and the majority
of those with PDD-unspeciedwhile maintaining speci-
city. Therefore relaxing one, or both, criteria will likely
allow the inclusion of more people currently considered to
be ASD using ICD-10R and DSM-IV-TR, without weak-
ening the boundaries between ASD and non-ASD. In
addition, clear guidance on how to deal with uncertainty in
the DSM-5 classication system will be particularly
important; the latest drafts of the DSM-5 criteria allow
criteria to be met by history or current state, which may
help where information is missing or uncertain. Rating
criteria that were unclear as present versus absent had
signicant effects on the rates of DSM-5 ASD diagnosis.
While this is the rst study to examine the draft DSM-5
criteria in adults with ASD who do not have intellectual
disabilities, some limitations should be noted. Like other
studies comparing existing criteria to the DSM-5 draft,
existing clinical notes and instruments that were used pri-
marily for allocating current (ICD-10R) diagnostic cate-
gories were analyzed. It remains to be seen whether using
the DSM-5 criteria in the clinic during assessment in a
prospective fashion would result in different ndings. For
example, sensory sensitivities are not part of current clin-
ical criteria and might be more thoroughly assessed in
J Autism Dev Disord (2013) 43:25152525 2521
1 3
future in clinics where DSM-5 criteria are adopted.
Nonetheless one potentially useful feature of the present
study, in contrast to many others, is the relatively large
number of participants (25 %) who were assessed for ASD
but found to be negative using current criteria. This
allowed examination of specicity of the different diag-
nostic measures. Finally, it should be noted, of course, that
it remains unclear whether existing ICD-10R or DSM-
IV-TR criteria should be considered the gold-standard
against which new criteria are compared; in the absence of
biomarkers, the exact denition of ASD and its boundaries
remain a matter for debate.
Conclusions
The specicity of the DSM-5 criteria, as compared to the
currently used ICD-10R and DSM-IV-TR criteria is good
but sensitivity is relatively low. This may be improved
(without adversely affecting specicity) by relaxing
DSM-5 criteria and by careful consideration of missing or
uncertain symptom information.
Acknowledgments Funding was provided by the Medical Research
Council (MRC, UK), the EU Autism Imaging Study (AIMS) network
(Grant Agreement: 115300), and the National Institute for Health
Research Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at Kings
College London, Institute of Psychiatry and South London and
Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust. The authors
wish to thank all the participants involved in this study. Also the
administrative support staff at the Behavioural Genetics Clinic:
Frances Harwood, Pauline Domingo and Marie Simpson.
Appendix 1
ICD-10R algorithm, with corresponding DSM-IV-TR
items provided alongside each criterion. Of the participants
that were diagnosed with ASD on the ICD-10R, the pro-
portion of participants that were coded Yes, No and
Unclear for each item is given.
ICD-10R Algorithm (Corresponding DSM-IV
item provided for each criterion).
ICD-10R: ASD
positive group
1 Qualitative abnormalities in reciprocal social
interaction are manifest in at least two of the
following areas:
Yes No Unclear
a. Failure adequately to use eye-to-eye gaze,
facial expression, body posture, and gesture to
regulate social interaction
DSM-IV-TR: 1a: Marked impairment in the use of
multiple nonverbal behaviours such as eye-to-
eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and
gestures to regulate social interaction.
78.8 13.3 8.0
Appendix continued
ICD-10R Algorithm (Corresponding DSM-IV
item provided for each criterion).
ICD-10R: ASD
positive group
b. Failure to develop (in a manner appropriate to
mental age, and despite ample opportunities)
peer relationships that involve a mutual sharing
of interests, activities, and emotions
DSM-IV-TR: 1b: Failure to develop peer
relationships appropriate to developmental
level
92.0 3.5 4.4
c. Lack of socio-emotional reciprocity as shown
by an impaired or deviant response to other
peoples emotions; or lack of modulation of
behaviour according to social context; or a
weak integration of social, emotional, and
communicative behaviours
DSM-IV-TR: 1d: Lack of social or emotional
reciprocity
79.6 7.1 13.3
d. Lack of spontaneous seeking to share
enjoyment, interests, or achievements with
other people (e.g. a lack of showing, bringing,
or pointing out to other people objects of
interest to the individual).
DSM-IV-TR: 1c: a lack of spontaneous seeking to
share enjoyment, interests, or achievements
with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing,
bringing, or pointing out objects of interest)
38.1 24.8 37.2
2. Are there restricted, repetitive patterns of
behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested
by at least one of the following:
Yes No Unclear
a. A delay in, or total lack of, development of
spoken language that is not accompanied by an
attempt to compensate through the use of
gesture or mime as an alternative mode of
communication (often preceded by a lack of
communicative babbling);
DSM-IV-TR: 2a: delay in, or total lack of, the
development of spoken language (not
accompanied by an attempt to compensate
through alternative modes of communication
such as gesture or mime)
23.9 51.3 24.8
b. Relative failure to initiate or sustain
conversational interchange (at whatever level of
language skills is present), in which there is
reciprocal responsiveness to the
communications of the other person
DSM-IV-TR: 2b: in individuals with adequate
speech, marked impairment in the ability to
initiate or sustain a conversation with others
94.7 0 5.3
c. Stereotyped and repetitive use of language or
idiosyncratic use of words or phrases
DSM-IV-TR: 2c: stereotyped and repetitive use of
language or idiosyncratic language
38.9 50.4 10.6
d. lack of varied spontaneous make-believe or
(when young) social imitative play
DSM-IV-TR: 2d: lack of varied, spontaneous
make-believe play or social imitative play
appropriate to developmental level
51.3 24.8 23.9
3. Restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns
of behaviour, interests, and activities are
manifest in at least one of the following areas:
Yes No Unclear
2522 J Autism Dev Disord (2013) 43:25152525
1 3
Appendix continued
ICD-10R Algorithm (Corresponding DSM-IV
item provided for each criterion).
ICD-10R: ASD
positive group
a. An encompassing preoccupation with one or
more stereotyped and restricted patterns of
interest that are abnormal in content or focus; or
one or more interests that are abnormal in their
intensity and circumscribed nature though not
in their content or focus
DSM-IV-TR: 3a: encompassing preoccupation
with one or more stereotyped and restricted
patterns of interest that is abnormal either in
intensity or focus.
66.4 20.4 13.3
b. Apparently compulsive adherence to specic,
non-functional routines or rituals
DSM-IV-TR: 3b: apparently inexible adherence
to specic, nonfunctional routines or rituals
56.6 25.7 17.7
c. Stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms
that involve either hand or nger apping or
twisting, or complex whole body movements
DSM-IV-TR: 3c: stereotyped and repetitive motor
mannerisms (e.g. hand or nger apping or
twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
17.7 65.5 16.8
d. Preoccupations with part-objects or non-
functional elements of play materials (such as
their odor, the feel of their surface, or the noise
or vibration that they generate).
DSM-IV-TR: 3d: persistent preoccupation with
parts of objects
27.4 50.4 22.1
Appendix 2
DSM-5 algorithm indicating the proportion of participants
diagnosed with ASD on the ICD-10R that were coded
Yes, No and Unclear for each item. Criteria from
ICD-10R that contribute to each DSM-5 criterion are
indicated, and underlined sections indicate sections not
explicitly in ICD-10R criteria.
DSM-5 Algorithm ICD-10R:
ASD positive group
Criteria from
ICD-10R
CRITERION A: Are
there persistent decits
in social
communication and
social interaction across
contexts, not accounted
for by general
developmental delays,
and manifest by ALL
THREE of the
following:
Yes No Unclear
Appendix continued
DSM-5 Algorithm ICD-10R:ASD
positive group
2b; 1c; 1d 1. Decits in social-
emotional reciprocity;
ranging from abnormal
social approach and
failure of normal back
and forth conversation/
through reduced sharing
of interests, emotions,
and affect and response
to total lack of initiation
of social interaction?
94.7 1.8 3.5
1a; 2. Decits in nonverbal
communicative
behaviors used for
social interaction;
ranging from poorly
integrated- verbal and
nonverbal
communication,
through abnormalities
in eye contact and
body-language, or
decits in
understanding and use
of nonverbal
communication, to total
lack of facial expression
or gestures?
80.5 13.3 6.2
1b; 2d (but must
be shared
imaginative
play)
3. Decits in developing
and maintaining
relationships,
appropriate to
developmental level
(beyond those with
caregivers); ranging
from difculties
adjusting behavior to
suit different social
contexts through
difculties in sharing
imaginative play and in
making friends to an
apparent absence of
interest in people?
93.8 2.7 3.5
CRITERION B: Are
there restricted,
repetitive patterns of
behavior, interests, and
activities, as manifested
by AT LEAST TWO of
the following:
Yes No Unclear
2c; 3c; 3d 1. Stereotyped or
repetitive speech, motor
movements, or use of
objects (such as, simple
motor stereotypies and
echolalia, repetitive use
of objects, or
idiosyncratic phrases)?
54.9 33.6 11.5
J Autism Dev Disord (2013) 43:25152525 2523
1 3
Appendix continued
DSM-5 Algorithm ICD-10R:ASD
positive group
2c; 3b 2. Excessive adherence to
routines, ritualized
patterns of verbal or
nonverbal behavior, or
excessive resistance to
change (such as,
motoric rituals,
insistence on same
route or food, repetitive
questioning, or extreme
distress at small
changes)?
57.5 25.7 16.8
3a; 3d 3. Highly restricted,
xated interests that is
abnormal in intensity or
focus (such as, strong
attachment to or
preoccupation with
unusual objects,
excessively
circumscribed or
perseverative interests)?
66.4 22.1 11.5
3d 4. Hyper- or hypo-
reactivity to sensory
input or unusual interest
in sensory aspects of
environment (such as,
apparent indifference to
pain/heat/cold, adverse
response to specic
sounds or textures,
excessive smelling or
touching of objects,
fascination with lights
or spinning objects)?
18.6 31.0 50.4
References
Abramowitz, J. S., & Deacon, B. J. (2006). Psychometric properties
and construct validity of the Obsessive-compulsive Inventory-
Revised: Replication and extension with a clinical sample.
Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 20, 10161035.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Association.
Baird, G., Charman, T., Baron-Cohen, S., Cox, A., Swettenham, J.,
Wheelwright, S., et al. (2000). A screening instrument for autism
at 18 months of age: A 6-year follow-up study. American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Pschiatry, 39(6), 694702.
Barkley, R. A. (2011). Barkley adult ADHD rating scale-IV (BAARS-
IV). New York City: The Guilford Press.
Barkley, R. A., & Murphy, K. R. (2005). Attention-decit hyperac-
tivity disorder: A clinical workbook (Vol. 2). New York City:
Guilford Press.
Carpenter, P. (2012). Diagnosis and assessment in autism spectrum
disorders. Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabil-
ities, 6(3), 121129. doi:10.1108/20441281211227184.
Foa, E. B., Huppert, J. D., Leiberg, S., Langner, R., Kichic, R.,
Hajcak, G., et al. (2002). The obsessive-complusive inventory:
Development and validation of a short version. Psychological
Assessment, 14(4), 485.
Fombonne, E. (2005). Epidemiology of autistic disorder and other
pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Clinical Psychi-
atry, 66, 3.
Frazier, T. W., Youngstrom, E. A., Speer, L., Embacher, R., Law, P.,
Constantino, J., & Findling, R. L., et al. (2012). Validation of
proposed DSM-5 criteria for autism spectrum disorder. Journal
of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
51(1), 2840.e3. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2011.09.021.
Happe, F. (2011). Criteria, categories, and continua: Autism and
related disorders in DSM-5. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 50(6), 540542.
Hill, A., Bolte, S., Petrova, G., Beltcheva, D., Tacheva, S., & Poustka,
F. (2001). Stability and Interpersonal agreement of the inter-
view-based diagnosis of autism. Psychopathology, 34, 187191.
Huerta, M., Bishop, S. L., Duncan, A., Hus, V., & Lord, C. (2012).
Application of DSM-5 criteria for autism spectrum disorder to
three samples of children with DSM-IV diagnoses of pervasive
developmental disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry,
169(10), 10561064.
Kapp, S., & Neeman, A. (2012). ASD in DSM-5: What the Research
Shows and Recommendations for Change. Autistic Self Advo-
cacy Network, 121. www.autisticadvocacy.org.
Lisspers, J., Nygren, A., & Soderman, E. (1997). Hospital Anxiety
and Depression Scale (HAD): Some psychometric data for a
Swedish sample. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 97, 281286.
Lord, C., Risi, S., Lambrecht, L., Cook, E. H., Leventhal, B. L.,
DiLavore, P. C., et al. (2000). The autism diagnostic observation
schedulegeneric: A standard measure of social and commu-
nication decits associated with the spectrum of autism. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30(3), 205223.
Lord, C., Rutter, M., & Couteur, A. (1994). Autism diagnostic
interview-revised: A revised version of a diagnostic interview for
caregivers of individuals with possible pervasive developmental
disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
24(5), 659685.
Matson, J. L., Belva, B. C., Horovitz, M., Kozlowski, A. M., &
Bamburg, J. W. (2012). Comparing symptoms of autism
spectrum disorders in a developmentally disabled adult popula-
tion using the current DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria and the
proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria. Journal of Developmental
and Physical Disabilities, 24(4), 403414. doi:10.1007/s10882-
012-9278-0.
Mattila, M. L., Kielinen, M., Linna, S. L., Jussila, K., Ebeling, H.,
Bloigu, R., et al. (2011). Autism spectrum disorders according to
DSM-IV-TR and comparison with DSM-5 draft criteria: An
epidemiological study. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 50(6), 583592.
McPartland, J. C., Reichow, B., & Volkmar, F. R. (2012). Sensitivity
and specicity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism
spectrum disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 51(4), 368383. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.
2012.01.007.
Murphy, D. G. M., Beecham, J., Craig, M., & Ecker, C. (2011).
Autism in adults. New biologicial ndings and their translational
implications to the cost of clinical services. Brain Research,
1380, 2233.
Ozonoff, S. (2012). Editorial: DSM-5 and autism spectrum disor-
derstwo decades of perspectives from the JCPP. Journal of
child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines, 1012.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02587.x.
Pinborough-Zimmerman, J., Bakian, A. V., Fombonne, E., Bilder, D.,
Taylor, J., & McMahon, W. M. (2012). Changes in the
2524 J Autism Dev Disord (2013) 43:25152525
1 3
administrative prevalence of autism spectrum disorders: Contri-
bution of special education and health from 20022008. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(4), 521530. doi:
10.1007/s10803-011-1265-2.
Swedo, S. E., Baird, G., Cook, E. H., Happe, F. G., Harris, J. C.,
Kaufmann, W. E., et al. (2012). Commentary from the DSM-5
workgroup on neurodevelopmental disorders. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 51(4),
347349.
Taheri, A., & Perry, A. (2012). Exploring the proposed DSM-5
criteria in a clinical sample. Journal of Autism and Develop-
mental Disorders, 42, 18.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler adult intelligence scale-III (WAIS-III).
San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.
World Health Organization. (1993). The ICD-10 classication of
mental and behavioural disorders: Diagnostic criteria for
research. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Worley, J. A., & Matson, J. L. (2012). Research in autism spectrum
disorders comparing symptoms of autism spectrum disorders
using the current DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria and the
proposed DSM-V diagnostic criteria. Research in Autism Spec-
trum Disorders, 6(2), 965970. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2011.12.012.
Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, R. P. (1983). The hospital anxiety and
depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67(6), 361370.
J Autism Dev Disord (2013) 43:25152525 2525
1 3