TABLE 4.

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

Variable	Na	Ratio (95% CI)	z Test, P	TOST
				z1 P	z2 P
PPVb			.01	.86	<.001
M-CHAT	98	0.40 (0.30–0.50)
PCP M-CHAT/F	98	0.58 (0.48–0.67)
PPVc			.49	.24	.02
PCP M-CHAT/F	98	0.58 (0.48–0.67)
AC M-CHAT/F	97	0.53 (0.43–0.63)
Sensitivityc			.37	.30	.01
PCP M-CHAT/F	98	0.59 (0.49–0.69)
AC M-CHAT/F	97	0.53 (0.43–0.63)
Specificityc			.80	.10	.04
PCP M-CHAT/F	98	0.71 (0.62–0.80)
AC M-CHAT/F	97	0.69 (0.60–0.79)
Accuracyc			.62	.17	.02
PCP M-CHAT/F	98	0.67 (0.57–0.76)
AC M-CHAT/F	97	0.63 (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.

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

^bRelevant difference.

^cEquivalence.