Skip to main content
. 2010 Jul 9;41(3):311–319. doi: 10.1007/s10803-010-1057-0

Table 2.

Raw score and calibrated severity score means and standard deviations by calibration cell (assessments with clinical ASD classifications only)

Cell Module and age group SARRB algorithm raw total score Calibrated severity scores
N M SD M SD ADOS classification
1 Mod 1, NW, age 2 50 19.12 (20.13) 3.93 (4.83) 6.72 (7.29) 1.67 (2.11) AUT
2 Mod 1, NW, age 3 18 18.44 (21.63)* 4.27 (3.85) 5.94 (7.56)* 1.59 (1.85) ASD
3 Mod 1, NW, age 4–5 28 20.32 (21.96)* 2.41 (3.63) 7.11 (7.87)* .99 (1.48) AUT
4 Mod 1, NW, age 6–14 29 19.79 (22.35)* 2.83 (3.34) 6.62 (7.88)* .98 (1.45) AUT
5 Mod 1, SW, age 2 88 12.76 (15.64)* 6.27 (5.77) 5.75 (7.02)* 2.74 (2.45) ASD
6 Mod 1, SW, age 3 90 14.42 (15.85) 6.13 (5.37) 6.32 (6.99) 2.61 (2.26) AUT
7 Mod 1, SW, age 4 46 15.07 (17.13) 4.72 (5.95) 6.52 (7.21) 1.76 (2.16) AUT
8 Mod 1, SW, age 5–6 37 17.30 (18.84) 4.70 (4.71) 6.97 (7.48) 1.62 (1.72) AUT
9 Mod 1, SW, age 7–14 30 19.93 (20.68) 4.14 (4.24) 7.57 (7.97) 1.85 (1.77) AUT
10 Mod 2, phrases, age 2
11 Mod 2, phrases, age 3 33 10.96 (14.57)* 5.62 (5.01) 5.70 (7.38)* 2.70 (2.04) ASD
12 Mod 2, phrases, age 4 86 9.36 (14.43)* 5.04 (5.93) 4.65 (6.73)* 2.40 (2.44) ASD
13 Mod 2, phrases, age 5–6 101 9.61 (16.84)* 5.08 (5.78) 4.71 (7.45)* 2.24 (1.99) ASD
14 Mod 2, phrases, age 7–8 29 11.07 (18.49)* 5.18 (5.22) 5.28 (7.79)* 2.09 (1.71) ASD
15 Mod 2, phrases, age 9–16 28 13.46 (19.16)* 5.71 (4.48) 6.07 (8.10)* 2.21 (1.37) AUT
16 Mod 3, fluent, age 2–5
17 Mod 3, fluent, age 6–9 176 10.50 (11.66) 5.53 (5.19) 5.98 (6.64) 2.83 (2.55) ASD
18 Mod 3, fluent, age 10–16 159 9.94 (12.48)* 5.11 (4.94) 5.75 (7.09)* 2.75 (2.45) ASD

ADOS classification based on mean calibrated severity scores of each calibration cell. Scores from Dutch sample with scores from Gotham’s sample in parentheses. ADOS Classification in Dutch sample, when different from Gotham’s sample: ADOS classification in Gotham’s sample in parentheses. * = scores significantly lower in the Dutch sample compared to the sample of Gotham et al. (2009), based on 95% Confidence Intervals. For cells 10 and 16, no Dutch data are available