Health Reports
Child functional characteristics explain child and family outcomes better than diagnosis: Population-based study of children with autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders/disabilitiesHealth Reports
Child functional characteristics explain child and family outcomes better than diagnosis: Population-based study of children with autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders/disabilities

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please "contact us" to request a format other than those available.

by Anton Miller, Jane Shen and Louise C. Mâsse

Release date: June 15, 2016

Children with neurodevelopmental disorders/disabilities (NDD/D) or “neurodisability”^{Note 1} are the largest identifiable subpopulation of children with disabilities^{Note 2} and account for 7% to 14 % of all children in developed countries.^{Note 3}^{Note 4} NDD/D comprise an array of conditions characterized by impairment in posture-mobility, cognitive-adaptive functioning, communication, relating socially, and regulating emotions and behaviour; biological or physical markers of a specific medical condition may or may not be present. Diagnoses under NDD/D include autism spectrum disorders (ASD), intellectual or learning disabilities, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), cerebral palsy, and Down and fetal alcohol syndromes.

Children with neurodisability require services and supports that span the health, educational, and family and social services sectors.^{Note 5} Health conditions, as listed in diagnostic taxonomies such as the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)^{Note 6} or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM),^{Note 7} often predominate in eligibility criteria for services and supports,^{Note 8}^{Note 9}^{Note 10} or form the basis of “disability categories” on which the provision of educational supports is determined.^{Note 11}^{Note 12}^{Note 13}^{Note 14} However, this approach has been challenged by calls to emphasize individuals’ functional characteristics^{Note 9}^{Note 15}^{Note 16}^{Note 17}^{Note 18} rather than the diagnosis category in which they are placed. These concerns arise in light of advances in the conceptualization of disability, along with recognition of the limitations of categorical diagnostic classification systems in mental and developmental health.^{Note 19}^{Note 20}

The World Health Organization’s 2001 International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)^{Note 21} has advanced the conceptualization of disability in three ways:

Disability is framed as the converse of healthy functioning.
Functioning/Disability, health conditions (diagnosed diseases and disorders), and contextual factors (environmental and personal) are distinct components of the framework.
Disability results from interactions between health conditions and contextual factors.

In the ICF, functioning is understood to manifest at the level of body, person, or person-in-society, operationalized respectively as intactness (or impairment) of body structures or physiological functioning, ability (or limitation) to carry out daily activities, and participation (or restriction) in meaningful activities with other people. While the ICF framework and concepts are increasingly being adopted and deployed in clinical and research contexts,^{Note 22}^{Note 23} empirical research into the dynamics and mechanisms of interactions among diagnosed health conditions and functional characteristics remains limited.

The appropriateness of using categorical diagnosis classifications in mental and developmental health has been questioned because of concern about the validity of conditions so defined^{Note 19}; the clinical heterogeneity of persons grouped under one diagnosis category such as ASD^{Note 24}; and the functional and diagnostic complexity of children with NDD/D.^{Note 2}^{Note 25} Clinicians observe considerable overlap in the day-to-day functional characteristics of children diagnosed with different NDD/D, despite the distinctness of symptom sets for conditions such as ASD, ADHD, or intellectual disability.

Empirical evidence of the roles of diagnosis versus functional characteristics in child and family outcomes could inform policy on services and supports for children with neurodisability. To this end, a national disability dataset, the 2006 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey, was used to study relationships between a child’s diagnosis status (ASD versus other neurodevelopmental diagnoses), a range of functional characteristics that were largely neurodevelopmental or psychological, and measures of child and family health and well-being. The analysis examined whether the functional characteristics most closely associated with a diagnosis of ASD (communication, learning, and regulation of emotions and behaviour) mediate associations between a child’s diagnosis status and the physical and psychological health of parents, the economic well-being of the family, and the child’s participation in various activities, while controlling for other functional characteristics less closely associated with ASD (hearing, vision, mobility, dexterity and pain) and for demographic variables. It was hypothesized that neurodevelopmental and related functional characteristics would be more informative than a child’s diagnosis in explaining child and family outcomes, and would largely or fully mediate apparent effects of diagnosis. ASD was selected as the “reference diagnosis” because of increases in its prevalence and the impact on public health and services.^{Note 26}^{Note 27} Also, funding programs have been implemented specifically for children with ASD, although an ASD diagnosis is recognized as being one among many factors relevant to understanding the characteristics and needs of affected children and their families.^{Note 28}^{Note 29}

Data and methods

Data source

The 2006 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS) is a national post-censal survey of adults and children who had a disability (operationalized as experiencing limitation in everyday activities due to a health condition/problem). PALS participants were selected from the 2006 Census of Canada based on responses to two general “filter” questions about activity limitations, as well as age and geography. For those younger than 15, the Child Questionnaire was used to determine the nature, severity, and impact of disabilities (vision, hearing, communication, mobility, dexterity, learning, developmental and emotional or psychological conditions), and to identify conditions and diagnoses that limit participation. Telephone interviews were conducted during 2006/2007 with 7,072 parents/guardians (“parents”) from a sample of approximately 9,000. The data were weighted following adjustment for patterns of non-response and various child characteristics,^{Note 30} yielding a weighted sample of 340,340.

The current study pertains to children aged 5 to 14 who were attending school because data on participation in various activities were available for them. The analyses were limited to children with NDD/D as identified through a method described in previous work with PALS, who accounted for almost three-quarters of 5- to-14-year-olds with disabilities in the dataset.^{Note 2} This involved classifying children into one of six NDD/D groups that reflect the most widely acknowledged functionally based domains of child development (motor, speech-language, learning/cognition, social, sensory, and psychological). Classification followed a detailed review of all ICD-10 codes available for each child, with consensus between two developmental pediatricians, triangulation of unclear cases with a third reviewer, and elimination of cases deemed unclassifiable.^{Note 2}

The current study was approved by the University of British Columbia’s Research Ethics Board.

Measures

Child’s diagnosis status: ASD diagnosis (yes/no) was ascertained from the presence of relevant ICD-10 codes (F84.0-F84.5, F84.8 and F84.9) based on information provided by parents during the PALS interview. This included their perception of their child’s main/most responsible health conditions, or their response to a question about a number of specific chronic conditions, one of which was professionally diagnosed autism.

Child’s functional status comprised: 1) functional domains most closely associated with a diagnosis of ASD; and 2) other domains. The three most relevant domains for ASD-related functioning available in PALS were speech-communication, learning-cognition, and emotional-behavioural-psychological. The other domains were vision, hearing, mobility, dexterity, and pain. Two sources were used for child functional characteristics: items from the Health Utilities Index (HUI), slightly modified in PALS for the targeted age group,^{Note 30} and the PALS impairment index (Table 1). Two latent variables that captured the construct of a child’s neurodevelopmental and related functional characteristics were created: 1) ASD-related functional characteristics (“ASD-related functioning”); and 2) non-specific child functional characteristics (“other functioning”). ASD-related functioning consisted of the three HUI attributes and the three PALS impairment index items most strongly associated with the core ASD impairments identified above. It was entered as a mediator in the analyses; other functioning (described below) was used as a covariate.

Table 1
Characteristics of children aged 5 to 14 with neurodevelopment disorders/disabilities and their families, household population, Canada, 2006 (weighted n = 120,700 unless otherwise stated)

In accordance with the concept of family quality of life in the context of disability,^{Note 31} family health and well-being comprised physical health, psychological well-being, and the economic impact of having a child with a disability, as they relate to parents (Table 1). A second-order factor structure with psychological well-being and economic impacts treated as latent constructs and physical health as an indicator variable was supported by a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) performed in this sample (χ²(df = 64) = 418.56, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.048, 90% CI 0.044–0.052, p = 0.768; CFI = 0.933; and WRMR = 2.002; Appendix Figure A). Cronbach’s alphas were 0.79 and 0.74 for psychological well-being and economic impacts, respectively.

Child participation comprised in-school participation and out-of-school participation (Table 1). A CFA performed in this sample supported the factor structure of child participation (χ²(df = 34) = 63.25, p = 0.0017; RMSEA = 0.018, 90% CI 0.011–0.025, p = 1.000; CFI = 0.958; and WRMR = 0.998; Appendix Figure B). Cronbach’s alphas were 0.71 and 0.49 for in-school and out-of-school participation, respectively. The Cronbach’s alpha was not optimal for out-of-school participation, likely because of lack of variance in the data for this construct.

The covariates entered into the analytic models were child age and sex, annual family income, residential location (urban/rural), and child “other functioning,” which regrouped the remaining five HUI attributes and four PALS impairment items (Table 1).

Analyse

Using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), three models were run. The covariates model examined the relationship among all covariates, and the three outcome variables—family health and well-being, child in-school participation, and child out-of-school participation. The direct effects model tested whether a child’s diagnosis status had a direct effect on the three outcome variables when accounting for the covariates. The indirect effects model tested whether a child’s diagnosis status had an indirect effect on the three outcome variables with ASD-related functioning included in the model, and if so, whether the indirect effects were mediated by ASD-related functioning when accounting for the covariates (Figure 1).

Figure 1
Schematic representation of direct and indirect effects models relating child diagnosis status and child functional characteristics to family health/well-being and child participation, household population aged 5 to 14, Canada, 2006

Using MPlus software (version 7.11, MUTHÉN & MUTHÉN, Los Angeles, CA), the mean and variance-adjusted weighted least-squares method (WLSMV) was employed. Based on published criteria,^{Note 32}^{Note 33} fit was considered to be acceptable if: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) with an upper 90% confidence interval (CI) was < 0.08 or a p-value ≥ 0.05; comparative fit index (CFI) was > 0.95; and Weighted Root Mean Square Residual (WRMR) was < 1.0. Because of the strong influence of sample size on the statistical significance of correlation coefficients, a standardized path coefficient (SPC) was considered to have a direct or indirect effect on the outcomes only if it was statistically significant (p < 0.05) and had an absolute magnitude greater than .22 (thereby explaining at least 5% of total variance, approximately^{Note 34}). To compare models, the incremental r-square (percentage of additional variance explained by adding variables in a model) was examined, and an additional 5% of variance explained was considered to be meaningful. Finally, the Sobel test was used to test the significance of the mediated effects.^{Note 35}

Results

Characteristics of the children and their families are presented in Table 1. Summary indices for the three SEM analyses are presented in Table 2.

Table 2
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) relating selected characteristics to family health/well-being and child participation, children aged 5 to 14 with neurodevelopment disorders/disabilities, Canada, 2006

All models adequately fitted the data—the RMSEAs were within acceptable ranges, although the CFI and WRMR were outside ideal range (Table 2). In all cases, examination of the modification indices did not uncover ways to improve model fit. Deleting non-significant paths can increase model fit, but in view of the confirmatory nature of these analyses, non-significant paths were not deleted.

The covariates model explained 11.6% of the variance for family health and well-being, 16.6% of the variance for in-school participation, and 16.4% of the variance for out-of-school participation.

In the direct effects model, child ASD diagnosis status had a significant and meaningful direct effect on family health and well-being (SPC = .29, p < 0.05) and on in-school participation (SPC = .35, p < 0.05) (Figure 2), but not on out-of-school participation (SPC = .10, p = 0.02), as the path coefficient did not meet the criterion for a meaningful magnitude of effect. Inclusion of child diagnosis status in the covariate model explained an additional 8% and 10.9% of the total variance in family health and well-being and in-school participation, respectively.

Figure 2
Direct effects model relating child diagnosis status to family health/well-being and child participation, household population aged 5 to 14 with neurodevelopmental disorders/disabilities, Canada, 2006

In the indirect effects model, the direct effects of child diagnosis status on child and family outcomes disappeared when ASD-related functioning was added (Figure 3), with SPCs no longer reaching thresholds for statistical significance or effect size magnitude. ASD-related functioning had a significant and meaningful direct effect on family health and well-being (SPC = .73, p < 0.05), in-school participation (SPC = .54, p < 0.05), and out-of-school participation (SPC = .25, p < 0.05). As anticipated, ASD-related functioning was also significantly related to child diagnosis status (SPC = .39, p < 0.05), meaning that absence of an ASD diagnosis was related to less impairment in the domains of speech and communication, cognition-learning, and emotional-behavioural/psychological functioning (Figure 3). Importantly, ASD-related functioning was a significant mediator between diagnosis status and family health and well-being (z = 7.88, p < 0.05), child in-school participation (z = 7.18, p < 0.05), and child out-of-school participation (z = 3.38, p < 0.05). Including ASD-related functioning in the model explained an additional 43.6%, 24.0%, and 5.2% of the total variance in family health and well-being, in-school participation, and out-of-school participation, respectively (Table 2).

Figure 3
Indirect effects model relating child diagnosis status and child functional characteristics to family health/well-being and child participation, household population aged 5 to 14 with neurodevelopmental disorders/disabilities, Canada, 2006

Discussion

Consistent with the hypotheses, for children diagnosed with ASD or other NDD/D, neurodevelopmental functional characteristics more fully explained variance in family and child outcomes than did the child’s diagnosis, and mediated the apparent effects of diagnosis status on these outcomes. To clinicians, these results may seem intuitive; however, the present findings contribute evidence that may be prove relevant to thinking about and planning services and supports for children with neurodisability.^{Note 36}^{Note 37} They highlight the importance of functional characteristics at a time when a given diagnosis often continues to be an important and sometimes major criterion in determining eligibility.

Previous studies demonstrated links between specific neurodevelopmental diagnoses and child and family outcomes,^{Note 38}^{Note 39}^{Note 40} but paid little attention to the possible explanatory role of the child’s functional characteristics. One study found parental stress to be higher in families in which a child had been diagnosed with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder than with ASD,^{Note 38} but did not investigate variations in child functional or behavioural characteristics. Other studies reported an ASD diagnosis to be associated with higher unmet health care needs and more adverse family impact than is found in families of children with special health care needs in general,^{Note 39} or in families in which children had other developmental disabilities (Down syndrome, cerebral palsy or developmental delay) or mental health conditions (anxiety or behavioural problems).^{Note 40} Although the latter study took children’s functional status into account, this was ascertained through a single generic question.^{Note 40} The composite measures in the present analysis were likely more sensitive because they involved ratings of functioning across an array of domains, and revealed that child functional characteristics better explained, and mediated, the apparent effect of diagnosis status. Kogan et al.^{Note 39} found that various emotional, developmental and behavioural problems, apart from an ASD diagnosis, predicted family impact and unmet needs, and that the child’s functional ability was the strongest and most robust predictor. Despite these findings, the authors emphasized the role of a diagnosis of ASD in their conclusions.^{Note 39}

A limited body of work has explicitly examined the relative impact of diagnosis status and functional characteristics on caregiver health and service needs. According to Blacher and McIntyre,^{Note 29} a diagnosis of autism among young adults with cognitive-adaptive disabilities predicted poorer maternal well-being than did undifferentiated intellectual disability, cerebral palsy or Down syndrome. However, in additional analyses, they found the relationship to be almost entirely accounted for by the level of behaviour problems in the child. Other researchers reported that the need for home care supports among families in which a child had intellectual disability or other special needs was most strongly predicted by the child’s degree of impairment in activities of daily living and intellectual disability, not by a diagnosis of intellectual disability per se.^{Note 10}^{Note 15} Finally, among children with a wide range of chronic conditions and functional difficulties, measures of health services use, personal limitations, and family impact were all predicted by health conditions and by functional difficulties; however, functional difficulties were the stronger predictor for all outcomes except school absences.^{Note 16}

The present study confirms the importance of functional characteristics versus diagnosis status in explaining variations in family impact and child participation.^{Note 10}^{Note 21}^{Note 41} Demonstration of these relationships in a well-defined population of Canadian children with NDD/D strengthens the relevance of this work to the organization of health, rehabilitative and social services for children with neurodisability. These findings complement evidence of functional, diagnostic, and biological complexity among children with NDD/D,^{Note 2}^{Note 25}^{Note 42}^{Note 43}^{Note 44}^{Note 45} and of the frequency of co-existing behavioural, emotional or other mental health issues,^{Note 46}^{Note 47}^{Note 48} which collectively reinforce concerns about the use of DSM or ICD categorical classifications for planning services. This study also illustrates the scope for innovative research on the dynamic inter-relationships among ICF domains.

Limitations

The strengths and significance of these findings should be considered in the context of several limitations. The main variables were ascertained from parents’ reports without corroboration of a child’s diagnosis or functional characteristics by third parties. However, most survey-based research is subject to the same potential limitation. Also, the risk of misunderstanding and bias is reduced in PALS through collection of information by trained, experienced interviewers.

The cross-sectional design of this study reduces the ability to infer that outcomes were the result of differences in children’s diagnoses or functional characteristics. In setting up the model, child ASD-related functioning was considered to be a proximal explanatory variable associated with aspects of child and family outcomes that possibly mediates relationships between diagnosis and “outcomes.” The assumption was that individually measured characteristics tell more about how a child “is” in daily life (with consequences for participation and caregiving), than does knowing the child’s diagnosis category. This assumption is supported by evidence of clinical heterogeneity and functional complexity within diagnosis categories.^{Note 2}^{Note 24}^{Note 25} In mitigation of this possible limitation, when the models were run with child diagnosis status as mediator, the results and conclusions were unchanged (data not shown).

It might have been preferable to have more fine-grained and investigator-selected items to analyze children’s functional characteristics. Nonetheless, PALS provided consistent and uniform data with which to study diagnosis-functioning relationships among children with neurodisability.

Finally, the filter question used as part of the PALS post-censal strategy may have led to under-representation of people with mental and psychological disability.^{Note 49} The possible impact of this on child participants, and on the analyses, is unclear.

Conclusion

These findings are most relevant to planning and providing services and supports for children with neurodisability. They are also relevant to clinicians who may focus mainly or exclusively on establishing a diagnosis. An expanded assessment horizon that includes measurement and documentation of individual functional characteristics would enable physicians to partner more fully with providers of ancillary and enabling services.^{Note 50} Future research might examine predictive interrelationships among diagnosis status, functional characteristics and outcomes for other neurodevelopmental and chronic childhood conditions, and how diagnosis status and child functional characteristics inter-relate in predicting family- and professional-perceived need for services and supports.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by funds provided to the Canadian Research Data Centre Network (CRDCN) from the Social Science and Humanities research Council (SSHRC), the Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR), the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI), and Statistics Canada. Dr. A. Miller and Dr. L.C. Mâsse receive support from the Sunny Hill Foundation for Children and the Child and Family Research Institute, respectively.

The authors thank all staff of the British Columbia Interuniversity Research Data Centre at the University of British Columbia for their support in accessing the data.

Appendix

Figure A
Psychometric properties of family health/well-being construct

Figure B
Psychometric properties of child participation constructs

References

Footnote 1.

Morris C, Janssens A, Tomlinson R, et al. Towards a definition of neurodisability: a Delphi survey. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 2013; 55(12): 1103-8.

Return to note 1 referrer

Footnote 2.

Miller AR, Mâsse LC, Shen J, et al. Diagnostic status, functional status and complexity among Canadian children with neurodevelopmental disorders and disabilities: a population-based study. Disability and Rehabilitation 2013; 35(6): 468-78.

Return to note 2 referrer

Footnote 3.

Boyle CA, Boulet S, Schieve LA, et al. Trends in the prevalence of developmental disabilities in US children, 1997-2008. Pediatrics 2011;127(6): 1034-42.

Return to note 3 referrer

Footnote 4.

Halfon N, Houtrow A, Larson K, Newacheck PW. The changing landscape of disability in childhood. Future Child 2012; 22(1): 13-42.

Return to note 4 referrer

Footnote 5.

Klassen A, Miller A, Anderson N, et al. Performance measurement and improvement frameworks in health, education and social services systems: a systematic review. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2010; 22(1): 44-69.

Return to note 5 referrer

Footnote 6.

World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Available at: http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/. Accessed December 24, 2014.

Return to note 6 referrer

Footnote 7.

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Fifth Edition. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 2013.

Return to note 7 referrer

Footnote 8.

McDowell M, O'Keeffe M. Public services for children with special needs: discrimination by diagnosis? Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 2012; 48(1): 2-5.

Return to note 8 referrer

Footnote 9.

Lindblad I, Svensson L, Landgren M, et al. Mild intellectual disability and ADHD; a comparative study of school age children's adaptive abilities. Acta Paediatrica 2013; 102(10): 1027-31.

Return to note 9 referrer

Footnote 10.

Fournier CJ, Davis MJ, Patnaik A, et al. Modeling caregivers' perceptions of children's need for formal care: physical function, intellectual disability, and behavior. Disability and Health Journal 2010; 3(3): 213-21.

Return to note 10 referrer

Footnote 11.

Curtin M, Baker D, Staines A, Perry IJ. Are the special educational needs of children in their first year in primary school in Ireland being identified: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pediatrics 2014; 14: 52. doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-14-52.

Return to note 11 referrer

Footnote 12.

Ministry of Children and Family Development, Government of British Columbia. Special Education Services: A Manual of Policies, Procedures and Guidelines - March 2011. Available at: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/specialed/ppandg.htm. Accessed December 24, 2014.

Return to note 12 referrer

Footnote 13.

Center for Parent Information and Resources. Categories of Disability under IDEA Law. 2012; Available at: http://www.parentcenterhub.org/repository/categories/. Accessed December 24, 2014.

Return to note 13 referrer

Footnote 14.

Desforges M, Lindsay G. Procedures Used to Diagnose a Disability and to Assess Special Educational Needs: An International Review. Co. Meath, Eire: The National Council for Special Education, 2010.

Return to note 14 referrer

Footnote 15.

Patnaik A, Elliott TR, Moudouni DM, et al. Severity of children's intellectual disabilities and Medicaid personal care services. Rehabilitation Psychology 2011; 56(4): 383-90.

Return to note 15 referrer

Footnote 16.

Lollar DJ, Hartzell MS, Evans MA. Functional difficulties and health conditions among children with special health needs. Pediatrics 2012; 129(3): e714-22.

Return to note 16 referrer

Footnote 17.

Lollar DJ, Simeonsson RJ. Diagnosis to function: classification for children and youths. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 2005; 26(4): 323-30.

Return to note 17 referrer

Footnote 18.

Rosenbaum P, Gorter JW. The 'F-words' in childhood disability: I swear this is how we should think! Child Care, Health and Development 2012; 38(4): 457-63.

Return to note 18 referrer

Footnote 19.

Hyman SE. The diagnosis of mental disorders: the problem of reification. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 2010; 6: 155-79.

Return to note 19 referrer

Footnote 20.

Widiger TA, Samuel DB. Diagnostic categories or dimensions? A question for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders--fifth edition. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 2005; 114(4): 494-504.

Return to note 20 referrer

Footnote 21.

World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2001.

Return to note 21 referrer

Footnote 22.

Cerniauskaite M, Quintas R, Boldt C, et al. Systematic literature review on ICF from 2001 to 2009: its use, implementation and operationalisation. Disability and Rehabilitation 2011; 33(4): 281-309.

Return to note 22 referrer

Footnote 23.

Wiegand NM, Belting J, Fekete C, et al. All talk, no action?: the global diffusion and clinical implementation of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2012; 91(7): 550-60.

Return to note 23 referrer

Footnote 24.

Geschwind DH, Levitt P. Autism spectrum disorders: developmental disconnection syndromes. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 2007; 17(1): 103-11.

Return to note 24 referrer

Footnote 25.

Gillberg C. The ESSENCE in child psychiatry: Early Symptomatic Syndromes Eliciting Neurodevelopmental Clinical Examinations. Research in Developmental Disabilities 2010; 31(6): 1543-51.

Return to note 25 referrer

Footnote 26.

Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network Surveillance Year 2010 Principal Investigators, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years - autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 sites, United States, 2010. MMWR Surveillance Summaries 2014; 63(2): 1-21.

Return to note 26 referrer

Footnote 27.

Shattuck PT, Grosse SD. Issues related to the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorders. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 2007; 13(2): 129-35.

Return to note 27 referrer

Footnote 28.

Brown HK, Ouellette-Kuntz H, Hunter D, et al. Beyond an autism diagnosis: children's functional independence and parents' unmet needs. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 2011; 41(10): 1291-302.

Return to note 28 referrer

Footnote 29.

Blacher J, McIntyre LL. Syndrome specificity and behavioural disorders in young adults with intellectual disability: cultural differences in family impact. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 2006; 50(Pt 3): 184-98.

Return to note 29 referrer

Footnote 30.

Statistics Canada. Participation and Activity Limitation Survey 2006: Technical and Methodological Report. Ottawa: Ministry of Industry, 2007.

Return to note 30 referrer

Footnote 31.

Beach Center on Disability, University of Kansas. Family Quality of Life. Available at: http://www.beachcenter.org/families/family_quality_of_life.aspx?JScript=1. Accessed July 24, 2015.

Return to note 31 referrer

Footnote 32.

Cook KF, Kallen MA, Amtmann D. Having a fit: impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT's unidimensionality assumption. Quality of Life Research 2009; 18(4): 447-60.

Return to note 32 referrer

Footnote 33.

Hu L, Bentler PM. Evaluating model fit. In: Hoyle RH, ed. Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication, 1995: 76-99.

Return to note 33 referrer

Footnote 34.

Hemphill JF. Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. The American Psychologist 2003; 58(1): 78-9.

Return to note 34 referrer

Footnote 35.

Sobel ME. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology 1982; 13: 90-312.

Return to note 35 referrer

Footnote 36.

Yost J, Dobbins M, Traynor R, et al. Tools to support evidence-informed public health decision making. BMC Public Health 2014; 14: 728. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-728.

Return to note 36 referrer

Footnote 37.

Matosevic T, McDaid D, Knapp M, et al. Evidence-informed Policy Making: Exploring the Concept of Knowledge Transfer in Social Care. Personal Social Services Research Unit Discussion Paper 2862. London, U.K.: London School of Economics, 2013.

Return to note 37 referrer

Footnote 38.

Watson SL, Coons KD, Hayes SA. Autism spectrum disorder and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Part I: a comparison of parenting stress. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 2013; 38(2): 95-104.

Return to note 38 referrer

Footnote 39.

Kogan MD, Strickland BB, Blumberg SJ, et al. A national profile of the health care experiences and family impact of autism spectrum disorder among children in the United States, 2005-2006. Pediatrics 2008; 122(6): 1149-58.

Return to note 39 referrer

Footnote 40.

Vohra R, Madhavan S, Sambamoorthi U, St Peter C. Access to services, quality of care, and family impact for children with autism, other developmental disabilities, and other mental health conditions. Autism 2014; 18(7): 815-26.

Return to note 40 referrer

Footnote 41.

Fauconnier J, Dickinson HO, Beckung E, et al. Participation in life situations of 8-12 year old children with cerebral palsy: cross sectional European study. British Medical Journal 2009; 338: b1458. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b1458.

Return to note 41 referrer

Footnote 42.

Kim YS, State MW. Recent challenges to the psychiatric diagnostic nosology: a focus on the genetics and genomics of neurodevelopmental disorders. International Journal of Epidemiology 2014; 43(2): 465-75.

Return to note 42 referrer

Footnote 43.

Levy Y, Ebstein RP. Research review: crossing syndrome boundaries in the search for brain endophenotypes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2009; 50(6): 657-68.

Return to note 43 referrer

Footnote 44.

Cuthbert BN, Insel TR. Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: the seven pillars of RDoC. BMC Medicine 2013; 11: 126. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-126.

Return to note 44 referrer

Footnote 45.

Moreno-De-Luca A, Myers SM, Challman TD, et al. Developmental brain dysfunction: revival and expansion of old concepts based on new genetic evidence. Lancet Neurology 2013; 12(4): 406-14.

Return to note 45 referrer

Footnote 46.

de Bruin EI, Ferdinand RF, Meester S, et al. High rates of psychiatric co-morbidity in PDD-NOS. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 2007; 37(5): 877-86.

Return to note 46 referrer

Footnote 47.

Einfeld SL, Ellis LA, Emerson E. Comorbidity of intellectual disability and mental disorder in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 2011; 36(2): 137-43.

Return to note 47 referrer

Footnote 48.

Lach LM, Kohen DE, Garner RE, et al. The health and psychosocial functioning of caregivers of children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Disability and Rehabilitation 2009; 31(8): 607-18.

Return to note 48 referrer

Footnote 49.

Statistics Canada. Canadian Survey on Disability, 2012: Concepts and Methods Guide. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2014.

Return to note 49 referrer

Footnote 50.

Benedict RE, Farel AM. Identifying children in need of ancillary and enabling services: a population approach. Social Science and Medicine 2003; 57(11): 2035-47.

Return to note 50 referrer

Date modified:: 2017-07-12

Language selection

Search and menus

Search

Archived Content

Data and methods

Data source

Measures

Analyse

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Appendix

Archived Content

Data and methods

Data source

Measures

Analyse

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Appendix

Note of appreciation

Standards of service to the public

Copyright