Brief Report

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

, Volume 43, Issue 5, pp 1236-1242

First online:

Brief Report: Comparability of DSM-IV and DSM-5 ASD Research Samples

  • C. A. MazefskyAffiliated withDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh Email author 
  • , J. C. McPartlandAffiliated withYale Child Study Center, Yale University
  • , H. Z. GastgebAffiliated withDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh
  • , N. J. MinshewAffiliated withDepartments of Psychiatry and Neurology, University of Pittsburgh

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access


Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) criteria for ASD have been criticized for being too restrictive, especially for more cognitively-able individuals. It is unclear, however, if high-functioning individuals deemed eligible for research via standardized diagnostic assessments would meet DSM-5 criteria. This study investigated the impact of DSM-5 on the diagnostic status of 498 high-functioning participants with ASD research diagnoses. The percent of participants satisfying all DSM-5-requirements varied significantly with reliance on data from the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS; 33 %) versus Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R; 83 %), highlighting the impact of diagnostic methodology on ability to document DSM-5 symptoms. Utilizing combined ADOS/ADI-R data, 93 % of participants met DSM-5 criteria, which suggests likely continuity between DSM-IV and DSM-5 research samples characterized with these instruments in combination.


Autism Diagnosis Assessment DSM-5 Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) Autism Diagnostic Interview (ADI)