The Latent Structure of Autistic Traits: A Taxometric, Latent Class and Latent Profile Analysis of the Adult Autism Spectrum Quotient.
Richard J E James, Indu Dubey, Danielle Smith and 2 others
PMID 27620625WHAT IT FOUND
Autism questionnaire scores did not behave as a simple severity scale.
A high-scoring group stood apart, and other people endorsed different autistic traits despite similar total scores.
Key findings
01All four analyses supported a distinct high-trait group rather than a continuous scale.
02A six-class model fit best, including a very high-score group almost always exceeding 32.
03Several groups had similar total severity but differed in which traits they endorsed.
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 sample was not a clinical ASD sample, and ASD diagnosis was not queried. The online sample came from general research, Asperger’s Syndrome, and autism forums, so some respondents may have had high traits or diagnoses, but the number was unknown. The sample was heavily student-based, and the original AQ validation study used a 77% student sample. No IQ, education, employment, or primary language information was collected, even though the AQ assumes normal IQ and no learning or linguistic difficulties. Taxometric analysis cannot definitively say how many groups exist, and the later models disagreed most about the intermediate groups. The study did not show what the high-trait group means for clinical ASD or adaptive behaviour.
Declared interests
The supplied text names the Economic and Social Research Council (GB) as a funder. It does not state author conflicts.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read a high AQ score as a diagnosis. The study analysed questionnaire scores, not clinical ASD status, and the authors note that the AQ may not map directly onto ASD measures.