TABLE 5.

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

Variable	Na	Ratio (95% CI)	z Test, P	TOST
				z1 P	z2 P
PPVb			.001	.94	<.001
M-CHAT	98	0.57 (0.47–0.67)
PCP M-CHAT/F	98	0.78 (0.69–0.86)
PPVc			.30	.29	.004
PCP M-CHAT/F	98	0.78 (0.69–0.86)
AC M-CHAT/F	97	0.71 (0.62–0.80)
Sensitivityc			.38	0.30	.01
PCP M-CHAT/F	98	0.55 (0.46–0.65)
AC M-CHAT/F	97	0.49 (0.39–0.59)
Specificityc			.43	.20	.008
PCP M-CHAT/F	98	0.79 (0.70–0.87)
AC M-CHAT/F	97	0.74 (0.65–0.83)
Accuracyc			.24	.40	.005
PCP M-CHAT/F	98	0.60 (0.56–0.75)
AC M-CHAT/F	97	0.57 (0.47–0.67)

Table includes suspected ASD/new phenotype. 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.