An Exploratory Study of a Dimensional Assessment of the Diagnostic Criteria for Autism.
Mark Brosnan
PMID 32219635WHAT IT FOUND
Two self-report questions about autism social and restricted/repetitive behaviours differed between adults who identified as autistic and those who did not, and related to an existing autism screen.
They are not diagnostic and need validation before use.
Key findings
01Diagnostic status was associated with self-reported social and restricted/repetitive behaviour items, with both autism groups scoring higher than the no-autism group.
02The formally diagnosed and informally diagnosed groups did not differ significantly on the social item, but did differ on the restricted/repetitive item.
03The two self-report items were positively associated with AQ10 scores and differed between participants above and below the AQ10 clinical cut-off.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The autism status was self-reported and not verified. The samples were online, voluntary, and recruited from people already interested in autism or alcohol, so they may not represent the general population. The sample was largely female: 798 females (74.2%), 203 males (18.9%), and 72 non-binary participants (6.7%), so results may not apply to males. The items were self-report and not intended to be diagnostic. Participation required literacy, comprehension, and internet access, and IQ was not measured; the findings may not apply to people with intellectual disability. Links to clinical diagnostic assessments such as ADOS still need to be explored.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat the two questions as an autism diagnostic test. They were exploratory self-report items, not intended to be diagnostic, and participants' autism status was not verified.