How do children and youth with autism spectrum disorder self-report on behavior? A study of the validity indexes on the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition, self-report of personality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-report measures offer a unique source of information in the assessment and intervention of individuals with autism spectrum disorder. However, it is not known if children with autism spectrum disorder can answer self-report questionnaires accurately and consistently. As a step to address this issue, we examined validity indexes of the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition, self-report of personality in 139 children and adolescents with and without autism spectrum disorder aged 8–17 years. There were no significant differences between groups on parents’ education, first language spoken at home, intelligence quotient, and age. We examined the influence of diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, age group, intelligence quotient, and attention problems on the self-report of personality validity indexes (indicators of overly negative or positive, random, inattentive or inconsistent responses). The findings suggest that participants with autism spectrum disorder were more likely to show at least one validity caution on their self-report of personality as compared to their matched typically developing peers. However, this difference might be a result of comorbid attention problems, rather than having a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. The diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder was not a significant predictor of the validity indexes. Participants, with and without autism spectrum disorder, with fewer attention problem ratings, higher intelligence quotient scores, and adolescents compared to children showed better validity outcomes. Lay abstract Using self-report questionnaires is an important method in the assessment and treatment of children with autism. Self-reports can provide unique information about children’s feelings and thoughts that is not available through other methods such as parent-reports. However, many clinicians are not sure whether children with autism can provide accurate self-reports. To study this, we examined 139 children and youth with and without autism aged 8–17 years. We looked at the effect of having autism, as well as other factors such as age, intelligence quotient, and attention problems on the validity of self-reports in these children. We examined if the children gave overly negative or positive answers and if they responded to the questions randomly or without paying attention. We found that children with autism can provide acceptable self-reports. However, they have more validity problems compared to their peers without autism. Our findings showed that this difference might be related to having attention problems in addition to autism, rather than having autism by itself. Children, with and without autism spectrum disorder, with fewer attention problems and higher intelligence quotient scores and those in the older age group, showed better validity. This article suggests that clinicians can use self-report measures for children with autism, but they should pay attention to important factors such as children’s intelligence quotient and attention problems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".