Sign Up
Login
Try for Free
Login
The MIGDAS-2 (Monteiro Interview Guidelines for Diagnosing the Autism Spectrum, Second Edition) is a sensory-based diagnostic interview that yields a qualitative three-domain profile instead of scores. Psychologists and evaluation teams use it within autism evaluations, almost always paired with a scored instrument. This page covers how to write up MIGDAS-2 findings, with a fictional sample and a results-section template.
Psychologists, school psychologists, and multidisciplinary autism evaluation teams; publisher qualification level C
Autism evaluation teams, IEP teams, physicians, funding and eligibility reviewers, parents and the person assessed
500 to 900 words for the MIGDAS-2 narrative · interview 30 to 90 minutes, depending on format
Qualitative, sensory-based diagnostic interview
Autism diagnostic evaluations across ages; verbally fluent, masking, adult, and minimally verbal presentations; paired with scored instruments for payer and district acceptance
Published by Western Psychological Services (2018); current edition as of July 2026; described here for write-up purposes, no interview content reproduced
The Monteiro Interview Guidelines for Diagnosing the Autism Spectrum, Second Edition (MIGDAS-2) is a sensory-based diagnostic interview process for gathering and organizing the qualitative information needed to evaluate autism in children, adolescents, and adults. Marilyn J. Monteiro, PhD, and Sheri Stegall, PhD, are the authors, and Western Psychological Services (WPS) published the second edition in 2018. The system is a manual plus five protocols: a Parent/Caregiver Questionnaire, a Teacher Questionnaire, and three diagnostic interviews matched to verbal fluency, one for individuals with limited to no verbal fluency, one for verbally fluent children and adolescents, and one for verbally fluent adults. The interview runs 30 to 90 minutes depending on format, uses everyday sensory-based toys and materials that are purchased separately from the kit, and requires publisher qualification level C. The output is a qualitative description of the person across three areas, Language and Communication, Social Relationships and Emotional Responses, and Sensory Use and Interests, summarized in a strengths-and-differences profile the materials call a brain style profile. As of July 2026 the 2018 edition remains current, with no successor announced.
The load-bearing fact for the write-up: the MIGDAS-2 produces no scores, no norms, and no cutoffs, by design. WPS's own product description positions the result as a behavioral profile "supplementing assessment scores and informing diagnosis and treatment planning." That makes it the structural opposite of the scored instruments it usually sits beside, the ADOS-2 with its algorithm classification, the CARS-2 severity rating, and the SRS-2 T-scores. Where a scored instrument gives you a number to interpret, a MIGDAS-2 section carries the entire diagnostic argument through organized description mapped to DSM-5-TR criteria, which is why the writing itself matters more here than on any other autism measure, and why acceptance varies sharply by payer and program, as covered below. This page reproduces none of the interview content or protocol materials.
Psychologists, school psychologists, and multidisciplinary evaluation teams use the MIGDAS-2 across schools, private practice, and hospital settings, and Texas's state autism resource lists it as an evaluation tool for ages 3 to 99. It earns its place in three referral situations. First, verbally fluent and high-masking presentations, where a structured observation can sit near threshold and a low-demand, interest-led conversation gives the person room to show how they actually process the social world. Second, adult and late-identification evaluations, which have a dedicated adult interview protocol. Third, minimally verbal individuals, through the limited-to-no-verbal-fluency protocol with a caregiver present. Its qualitative output also fits teams that value strengths-forward feedback, since the process is built to support narrative reporting in language parents understand. What it does not do is stand alone: WPS itself markets the MIGDAS-2 as the qualitative half of a pairing with the ADOS-2, and in practice evaluators pair it with a scored measure such as the SRS-2 or CARS-2, plus a developmental history such as the ADI-R, inside a full psychological evaluation report. Where funding rules name specific scored instruments, the pairing is not optional, a point the considerations section takes up.
Because the MIGDAS-2 yields narrative rather than numbers, the results section is longer than a score write-up and its organization carries the evidentiary weight. The convention that reads best to reviewers is a short methods statement, an observation paragraph, one paragraph per domain, then integration and formulation. Name the three areas consistently using the publisher's wording, since even WPS materials vary the order and phrasing across pages.
Measures and context statement. Name the instrument in full with the edition and year, the specific protocol used (limited-to-no verbal fluency, child and adolescent, or adult), the questionnaires collected, and the scored measures administered alongside it. State in one sentence that the MIGDAS-2 is a qualitative interview that yields a descriptive profile rather than scores. Pitfall: leaving the reader to assume a score is coming; a reviewer who reaches the end of the section hunting for a number reads the report as incomplete rather than the instrument as qualitative.
Interview conditions and behavioral observations. Describe the setting, who was present, the sensory-based materials offered, and how the person engaged over the session arc, including rapport, transitions, and response to the low-demand format. Pitfall: generic observation boilerplate; the sensory-based, interest-led format is the method, so describe how the person used it, not just that they "engaged well."
Language and Communication. Describe conversational flow on preferred versus non-preferred topics, reciprocity, scripting or precise phrasing, prosody, and how language held up when the agenda shifted, each claim anchored to a described moment from the interview. Pitfall: adjectives without evidence; "pedantic speech" persuades no one, while a described exchange does the diagnostic work for you.
Social Relationships and Emotional Responses. Describe how the person initiated and sustained interaction, read and used nonverbal signals, described relationships and emotions, and what changed when structure dropped away. Pitfall: glossing surface sociability; for masking presentations the load-bearing observation is often the contrast between rehearsed social openings and what happened in unstructured moments, so write the contrast explicitly.
Sensory Use and Interests. Describe responses to the sensory materials, seeking and avoiding patterns, and the depth, intensity, and role of focused interests, including strengths they produce. Pitfall: cataloguing sensory behaviors as oddities; tie each pattern to DSM-5-TR's restricted, repetitive behavior criterion or to the person's self-regulation so the material argues rather than lists.
Informant input and integration with scored measures. Summarize the parent, caregiver, and teacher questionnaire narratives, then state where the qualitative profile and the scored instruments converge and where they diverge, and reconcile the divergence rather than averaging it. Pitfall: letting a below-threshold score and a positive qualitative profile sit unreconciled; explain the discrepancy, for example camouflaging during brief structured observation, or revisit the conclusion.
Diagnostic formulation and recommendations linkage. Map the described evidence criterion by criterion to DSM-5-TR, state the diagnostic conclusion as clinical judgment integrating all sources, summarize the strengths-and-differences profile in plain language, and tie each recommendation to a specific described finding. Pitfall: a strengths-forward summary that never lands on a clear diagnostic statement; affirming language and diagnostic clarity are not in tension, and funding reviewers need the conclusion in one findable sentence.
MIGDAS-2 RESULTS SECTION Instrument/edition: MIGDAS-2 (2018) Protocol: [limited-to-no verbal fluency / child-adolescent verbal fluency / adult verbal fluency] Nature of measure: [one sentence stating the MIGDAS-2 is a qualitative interview yielding a descriptive profile, not scores or norms] Administered by: [name, credentials] Date(s): [ ] Paired measures: [scored instrument(s), e.g. SRS-2 / ADOS-2 / CARS-2, plus developmental history and records] INTERVIEW CONDITIONS AND OBSERVATIONS [Setting, who was present, sensory materials offered, engagement arc, rapport, transitions, response to the low-demand format] LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION [Described evidence: reciprocity, preferred-topic vs shifted-agenda speech, scripting, prosody; anchor each claim to a moment] SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND EMOTIONAL RESPONSES [Described evidence: initiations, nonverbal signals, relationships, the structured-vs-unstructured contrast for masking presentations] SENSORY USE AND INTERESTS [Described evidence: seeking/avoiding patterns, focused interests, their intensity, role, and strengths; tie to criteria] INFORMANT INPUT AND INTEGRATION [Parent/caregiver and teacher questionnaire narratives; convergence and divergence with scored measures, reconciled not averaged] DSM-5-TR FORMULATION AND PROFILE SUMMARY [Criterion-by-criterion mapping of described evidence; diagnostic conclusion as clinical judgment; strengths-and-differences summary in plain language; limitations incl. qualitative, non-normed method] RECOMMENDATIONS LINKAGE [Each recommendation tied to a specific described finding] Evaluator signature / credentials: Date:
Free to use and share, no signup. The PDF includes a one-page cheat sheet with section-by-section pitfalls and a pre-sign checklist; the DOCX is the blank results-section skeleton, ready to adapt.
Scenario: a verbally fluent 9-year-old girl is referred by her school team for peer-relationship concerns alongside strong academics, a profile where masking is a live question. The MIGDAS-2 child and adolescent interview was used as the qualitative component of a broader evaluation, paired with the SRS-2 and a developmental history. This is the MIGDAS-2 section only, and it deliberately carries the argument through described behavior, with no interview content or protocol material reproduced. All details are fictional.
Client: J.T., 9 · Referral: school evaluation team, peer relationships and intense interests · Evaluator: R. Vasquez, PhD, Licensed Psychologist · Interview date: 07/09/2026 · Report date: 07/16/2026
Measures and context: The Monteiro Interview Guidelines for Diagnosing the Autism Spectrum, Second Edition (MIGDAS-2, 2018) was administered using the diagnostic interview for children and adolescents with verbal fluency, with the parent/caregiver and teacher questionnaires collected beforehand. The MIGDAS-2 is a qualitative, sensory-based interview that yields a descriptive profile rather than scores; it was paired with the Social Responsiveness Scale, Second Edition (SRS-2) and a developmental history so that scored and descriptive evidence could be integrated.
Interview conditions and observations: J.T. was seen in a quiet office stocked with everyday sensory materials, with her mother present for the opening minutes. She entered warily, answered early questions in brief rehearsed-sounding phrases, and settled visibly once the conversation moved to materials she could handle. Engagement was strongest when she directed the topic and thinned when the examiner introduced changes of agenda. She stayed the full session and accepted transitions with advance notice.
Language and Communication: J.T. spoke in full, precise sentences, with vocabulary above age expectation. On her preferred topic, marine animals, she produced long, structured monologues with rehearsed phrasing and little checking of the listener's interest. When the examiner shifted to open-ended social topics, her responses shortened to a sentence or two, latency increased, and she twice returned the conversation to marine animals within a few turns. Conversational repair was effortful: asked to clarify an ambiguous answer, she repeated the same words more slowly rather than rephrasing.
Social Relationships and Emotional Responses: J.T. described classmates by role rather than relationship, naming one friend "because we line up together." Her social openings with the examiner were polite and formulaic, and she monitored whether she was "doing it right," asking twice whether her answers were what the examiner wanted. When structure dropped away in casual moments, she oriented to the materials rather than the person. She described emotions with precision when given concrete scenarios but described her own feelings in learned, rule-like terms, for example that recess is "for making friendship attempts."
Sensory Use and Interests: J.T. gravitated immediately to the textured items, sorted them by feel, and described strong aversions to cafeteria noise and clothing tags, which her mother confirmed shape morning routines. Her interest in marine animals is deep, factual, and organizing: she reads adult-level references, catalogues species by classification, and structures free time around it. The interest is a genuine strength, and it also crowded out reciprocal exchange whenever it was available as a topic.
Informant input and integration: The parent questionnaire described early language that was fluent but script-like, sensitivity to sound and texture from toddlerhood, and friendships that fade without adult scaffolding. The teacher questionnaire described a capable student who follows rules closely, prefers predictable routines, and spends most unstructured time alone by choice. The SRS-2 total score fell in the moderate range (T = 71, invented for this illustration), consistent with the interview profile. The qualitative profile and the scored measure converge; the earlier screening picture had been mixed, which is consistent with a child who manages rehearsed, structured demands well and differs most in unstructured, reciprocal moments.
DSM-5-TR formulation and profile summary: Across the interview, questionnaires, history, and the SRS-2, J.T. shows persistent differences in social-emotional reciprocity, in nonverbal and relationship understanding, and in restricted, repetitive patterns including sensory sensitivity and an intense focused interest, present from early development and impacting unstructured social functioning. These findings meet DSM-5-TR criteria for autism spectrum disorder, requiring support, as a clinical judgment integrating all sources; no single measure made the determination. Her profile pairs strong factual language, deep focused expertise, and rule-based learning with differences in reciprocal conversation, flexible social reading, and sensory processing.
Recommendations linkage: The reciprocity findings support recommendation 1 (structured peer opportunities built around shared interests). The sensory findings support recommendation 2 (noise and clothing accommodations at school). The masking pattern supports recommendation 3 (adult check-ins that do not rely on J.T. self-reporting distress). Eligibility decisions rest with the school team applying its own criteria.
This sample is fictional and for educational purposes. It does not describe a real person or record. All names, quotations, and the single rating-scale value are invented for illustration and correspond to no real child or record.
Writing these after every session? BastionGPT drafts complete notes from bullets, dictation, or a transcript.
Generate a note from bulletsAcceptance is the decision that shapes a MIGDAS-2 write-up, and it splits cleanly by authority. LAW: no United States statute or regulation names any autism instrument; under IDEA, 34 CFR 300.304(b)(2) requires that a school evaluation "not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion," which is precisely the opening that lets a MIGDAS-2-anchored educational evaluation qualify when other data sources are present, and Texas's state autism resource (TSLAT) lists the MIGDAS-2 as an evaluation tool. PAYER POLICY: the picture inverts. Aetna's autism clinical policy bulletin names the ADI-R, ADOS-2, CARS-2, and Asperger Syndrome Diagnostic Scale as diagnostic tools used with clinical assessment, and does not name the MIGDAS-2, so acceptance of a MIGDAS-2-inclusive evaluation turns on whether the whole evaluation meets multi-source medical-necessity criteria rather than on the instrument. British Columbia is the hard exclusion: for Autism Funding, a private diagnosis "requires completion of both ADOS-2 and ADI-R" and other assessments will not meet eligibility, so a MIGDAS-2 profile cannot anchor a funding-eligible private diagnosis there, and the Canadian Paediatric Society notes that in some jurisdictions the ADOS and ADI-R are required. CONVENTION: Australia's National Guideline, whose 66 recommendations were approved by the NHMRC in December 2023, mandates no instrument and frames assessment as multi-method, the most room the MIGDAS-2 gets anywhere. The practical rule for the report: pair the qualitative profile with a scored instrument such as the ADOS-2, CARS-2, or SRS-2 unless you have confirmed the receiving system accepts qualitative-only evidence, and name the receiving system's requirement in the file.
Evidence-base honesty belongs in the write-up posture. As of July 2026 the MIGDAS-2 has not been reviewed in the Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook, its state-resource research listing cites only the manual, and we located no independent peer-reviewed validation study, which is unsurprising for a deliberately qualitative, non-normed process but matters when a report calls it "standardized" or "evidence-based," claims a reviewer can test and a cross-examiner will. Describe it as what it is: a structured qualitative interview whose value is systematic organization of descriptive evidence, used alongside scored measures. Purchase requires WPS qualification level C, and your license and training govern use. On remote work, WPS's telepractice guidance treats the interview as an interactive social interaction that distancing and videoconference formats can affect, while the parent and teacher interviews adapt well to secure videoconferencing; if any component was gathered remotely, say so and note the effect on the interaction. Where the interview forms part of a psychological testing evaluation service, interview integration and report writing are typically reported within the usual testing-evaluation codes such as 96130 and 96131, subject to payer policy. Keep the three domain names consistent with the publisher's wording throughout the report, and date your edition statement, since instrument facts change.
MIGDAS-2 is a trademark of Western Psychological Services (WPS). BastionGPT is not affiliated with, or endorsed by, the publisher. This page reproduces no test items, stimuli, norms, or scoring materials.
The error pattern around this instrument is distinctive: because most assessment write-ups are organized around numbers, clinicians and the pages they consult keep trying to force the MIGDAS-2 into a scored mold. The publisher's own materials describe a qualitative process yielding descriptive results, it has never been reviewed in the Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook, and its state-resource research listing cites only the manual, yet reports and marketing copy still speak of MIGDAS-2 "scores" and "standardized" findings. The BastionGPT Clinical Advisory Board sees the same errors most often in MIGDAS-2 write-up reviews:
BastionGPT is specifically trained, tuned, and clinically tested on psychological and psychoeducational evaluation reports.
See how clinicians use it day to day on the AI therapy notes page.
Many BastionGPT users report saving more than 90 minutes per day on documentation.
HIPAA-compliant with a signed BAA on every plan. Your data is never used to train models. BastionGPT drafts, you review and sign.
A MIGDAS-2 result is a qualitative description of the person across three areas, Language and Communication, Social Relationships and Emotional Responses, and Sensory Use and Interests, drawn from a sensory-based interview plus parent/caregiver and teacher questionnaires. The publisher describes the output as a behavioral profile that supplements assessment scores, summarized as a strengths-and-differences profile. In a report, that means one organized narrative paragraph per area, each claim anchored to described behavior, integrated with history and any scored measures, and mapped to DSM-5-TR criteria. The write-up should say explicitly that the instrument yields descriptive results rather than scores, so no reader goes hunting for a number that does not exist. The full structure is on this page, inside a whole evaluation report.
No on both counts, and reports should not use either word for it. The MIGDAS-2 is a structured qualitative interview: the protocols organize what the evaluator gathers and how it is documented, but there is no standardized administration yielding scores, no normative sample, and no cutoff. That is a design choice, not a defect, and the honest description, a systematic qualitative interview used alongside scored measures, is also the defensible one. Pages and reports that call it a standardized or scored measure are the most common factual error around this instrument. When a referral needs norm-referenced evidence, pair it with a scored tool such as the SRS-2 or CARS-2.
It depends entirely on the destination, so check before evaluating. LAW: under IDEA, no instrument is named and no single measure may be the sole criterion, so a school evaluation can include the MIGDAS-2 within a multi-source assessment, and Texas's state autism resource lists it as an evaluation tool. PAYER POLICY: Aetna's autism policy names the ADI-R, ADOS-2, CARS-2, and Asperger Syndrome Diagnostic Scale, not the MIGDAS-2, so commercial acceptance rides on the whole evaluation's medical-necessity documentation. British Columbia's Autism Funding requires both the ADOS-2 and ADI-R for private diagnoses and accepts no substitute. CONVENTION: Australia's NHMRC-approved national guideline mandates no instrument and frames assessment as multi-method. The safe default everywhere: pair it with a scored instrument.
They answer different questions and are strongest combined. The ADOS-2 is a standardized direct observation with an algorithm classification, and it is the tool payers and funding bodies most often name. The ADI-R is a structured caregiver interview about developmental history. The CARS-2 is a clinician severity rating, and the SRS-2 is a norm-referenced trait scale. The MIGDAS-2 is the qualitative complement to all of them: a sensory-based, interest-led interview that surfaces how the person actually processes conversation, relationships, and sensory experience, which is where masking presentations often show most clearly. WPS itself markets the ADOS-2 and MIGDAS-2 as a pairing of quantitative data with lived experience. None of the five is the diagnosis; DSM-5-TR and clinical judgment are.
Yes. The system includes a dedicated Diagnostic Interview for Adults With Verbal Fluency, one of its five protocols, and the publisher's specifications span toddlers through adults. That makes it one of the few autism interview tools with an adult-specific protocol, which is why it appears often in late-identification evaluations, where a lifetime of camouflaging can mute what brief structured observation detects. Peer-reviewed work has quantified camouflaging across dozens of studies and validated self-report measures of it, so an adult write-up can pair the MIGDAS-2 narrative with a camouflaging measure and a scored autism instrument, then reconcile the sources. For adults, collateral history still matters; document what early-development information was available and its limits.
In the MIGDAS-2 materials, the brain style profile is the summary of the person's strengths and differences across the three areas, expressed in plain, non-deficit language, and the publisher's training emphasizes describing clients in positive and descriptive terms. It is a communication device, not a score, and it is often what families remember from feedback. In the report itself, use it as the plain-language summary paragraph after the DSM-5-TR formulation: describe what the person's processing style is good at and where it differs, in words a parent or teacher can act on. Keep the clinical terminology in the formulation, keep the profile summary consistent with it, and never let the friendly summary replace the diagnostic statement.
As of July 2026, no. The MIGDAS-2 does not appear in the recent Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook tests-reviewed lists, the research section of its Texas state-resource listing cites only the manual, and we located no independent peer-reviewed validation, reliability, or diagnostic-accuracy study. For a deliberately qualitative, non-normed process this is unsurprising, since there are no scores whose accuracy a study could test in the usual way, but it has two write-up consequences. First, never describe the instrument as validated, evidence-based, or gold standard; those claims are checkable and false. Second, carry the evaluation's defensibility with the scored instruments and the convergence across sources, and treat the MIGDAS-2 as the organized qualitative evidence within that structure. If independent validation or a Buros review appears, this changes; date any claim you make.
No. The protocols, interview guides, and manual content are the publisher's copyrighted test materials, and psychologists are ethically obligated to maintain test security under APA Ethics Standard 9.11; WPS enforces the same through its purchase qualifications. Copies of the protocols circulate on document-sharing sites, and using or citing them creates the same problem from the other direction. None of this restricts your report, because what belongs there was never the protocol: your report carries your description of the person's behavior, your organization of it by domain, and your interpretation. Describe what happened in the interview in your own words, at whatever level of behavioral detail the argument needs, and leave the instrument's internal content out of the record.
Yes. Paste your interview and observation notes, the questionnaire summaries, and any scored results, and it drafts the MIGDAS-2 section for your review: three evidence-anchored domain narratives, the integration with informant and scored data, the DSM-5-TR mapping, and a plain-language strengths-and-differences summary. It can also cross-check a draft you wrote for the flags reviewers raise, invented score language, standardized or evidence-based labels, adjectives without described evidence, or an unreconciled gap with a paired measure, and produce a parent-friendly version of the findings. BastionGPT is HIPAA-compliant with a signed BAA on every plan, your data is never used to train models, and because you paste only your own notes and summaries, no protocol content ever enters the draft.
The instrument facts and compliance claims on this page trace to these sources, last verified July 2026:
Educational content, not legal or billing advice. Sample notes are fictional. Follow your organization's policies and your board, payer, and jurisdiction requirements.