Associations between theory of mind and conduct problems in autistic and <scp>nonautistic</scp> youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many autistic young people exhibit co-occurring behavior difficulties, characterized by conduct problems and oppositional behavior. However, the causes of these co-occurring difficulties are not well understood. Impairments in theory of mind (ToM) are often reported in autistic individuals and have been linked to conduct problems in nonautistic individuals. Whether an association between ToM ability and conduct problems exists in autistic populations, whether this association is similar between individuals who are autistic versus nonautistic, and whether these associations are specific to conduct problems (as opposed to other domains of psychopathology) remains unclear. ToM ability was assessed using the Frith-Happé Triangles task in a pooled sample of autistic (N = 128; mean age 14.78 years) and nonautistic youth (N = 50; mean age 15.48 years), along with parent-rated psychiatric symptoms of conduct problems, hyperactivity/inattention and emotional problems. Analyses tested ToM ability between autistic versus nonautistic participants, and compared associations between ToM performance and conduct problems between the two groups. Where no significant group differences in associations were found, the pooled association between ToM and conduct problems was estimated in the combined sample. Results showed no evidence of moderation in associations by diagnostic status, and an association between poorer ToM ability and higher levels of conduct problems, hyperactivity/inattention and emotional problems across the total sample. However, these associations became nonsignificant when adjusting for verbal IQ. Results provide support for theoretical models of co-occurring psychopathology in autistic populations, and suggest targets for intervention for conduct problems in autistic youth. LAY SUMMARY: Many young people with autism spectrum disorder show co-occurring behavior problems, but the causes of these are not well understood. This paper found an association between difficulties recognizing what others think and intend (so-called "theory of mind") in a simple animated task, and emotional and behavioral problems in autistic and nonautistic young people. However, a substantial part of this association was explained by individual differences in verbal ability. These findings may have implications for intervention efforts to improve young people's mental health.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".