Self‐perception of competencies in adolescents with autism spectrum disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has demonstrated that, despite difficulties in multiple domains, children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) show a lack of awareness of these difficulties. A misunderstanding of poor competencies may make it difficult for individuals to adjust their behaviour in accordance with feedback and may lead to greater impairments over time. This study examined self-perceptions of adolescents with ASD (n = 19) and typically developing (TD) mental-age-matched controls (n = 22) using actual performance on objective academic tasks as the basis for ratings. Before completing the tasks, participants were asked how well they thought they would do (pre-task prediction). After completing each task, they were asked how well they thought they did (immediate post-performance) and how well they would do in the future (hypothetical future post-performance). Adolescents with ASD had more positively biased self-perceptions of competence than TD controls. The ASD group tended to overestimate their performance on all ratings of self-perceptions (pre-task prediction, immediate, and hypothetical future post-performance). In contrast, while the TD group was quite accurate at estimating their performance immediately before and after performing the task, they showed some tendency to overestimate their future performance. Future investigation is needed to systematically examine possible mechanisms that may be contributing to these biased self-perceptions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".