Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Instruments measuring autism-related knowledge, attitudes and self-efficacy are widely used with health professionals, but their measurement properties remain unclear when individual scores are considered separately. Methods: We mapped instruments evaluated in health-professional populations and appraised them using COSMIN, treating each total score, subscale and translation as a separate unit of appraisal. Certainty and recommendation categories were then assigned. Results: Across 126 instrument–property cells for fourteen instruments, the 140 rating codes included eight sufficient, three insufficient, thirty-seven indeterminate and seventy-five not-evaluated codes. All appraised instruments were category B in the primary analysis, indicating that evidence supports neither a positive nor a negative recommendation. A reflective-model sensitivity reading placed the Greek KCAHW in category C. The dominant finding is absence rather than inadequacy: measurement error and responsiveness were examined for none, and cross-cultural validity and test–retest reliability for few. Where a result exists it usually cannot be interpreted, because the dimensionality of the score was never established. Content validity was independently examined for a minority of instruments, addressing expert agreement with answer keys rather than comprehensiveness or comprehensibility. Conclusions: Establishing structural validity in the population of use, and evaluating content validity with intended respondents, would address the principal evidence gaps.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stelliou et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: