TABLE 6.

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

Variable	Na	Ratio (95% CI)	z Test, P	TOST
				z1 P	z2 P
PPVb			.001	.94	<.001
M-CHAT	98	0.68 (0.59–0.78)
PCP M-CHAT/F	98	0.88 (0.81–0.94)
PPVc			.51	.09	.004
PCP M-CHAT/F	98	0.88 (0.81–0.94)
AC M-CHAT/F	97	0.84 (0.62–0.80)
Sensitivityc			.60	.19	.03
PCP M-CHAT/F	98	0.52 (0.42–0.62)
AC M-CHAT/F	97	0.48 (0.39–0.58)
Specificityc			.56	.11	.008
PCP M-CHAT/F	98	0.84 (0.77–0.91)
AC M-CHAT/F	97	0.81 (0.73–0.89)
Accuracyc			.62	.18	.03
PCP M-CHAT/F	98	0.62 (0.53–0.72)
AC M-CHAT/F	97	0.59 (0.49–0.69)

Developmental Delay Positive was defined as >1.5 SDs below the mean on ≥2 Mullen scales or >2 SDs below the mean on ≥1 Mullen scale. 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).

^bTrivial difference.

^cEquivalence.