Repetitive and restricted behaviors and interests in autism spectrum disorder: relation to individual characteristics and mental health problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although repetitive and restricted behaviors and interests (RRBIs) may interfere with well-being and functioning in autistic individuals, research on their relation to sex, age, cognitive level, and mental health problems remains unclear. Much of the research to date has used broad categorizations rather than specific categorizations of RRBIs to examine the difference in RRBIs between individuals. The purpose of this study was to explore, in different groups of individuals, the presence of specific RRBI subtypes, and to examine the association of specific RRBI subtypes with symptoms of internalizing and externalizing behaviors. METHODS: Secondary data analyses were conducted using the Simons Simplex Collection dataset, which included 2,758 participants (aged 4 to 18). Families of autistic children completed the Repetitive Behavior Scale-Revised (RBS-R) and the Child Behavior Checklist. RESULTS: Across all RBS-R subtypes, results revealed no sex differences. Older children showed higher rates of Ritualistic/Sameness behaviors than younger children and adolescents, whereas younger and older children showed more Stereotypy than adolescents. Additionally, lower cognitive level groups showed higher rates of RBS-R subtypes except for Ritualistic/Sameness. After controlling for age and cognitive level, RBS-R subtypes accounted for a substantial amount of variance in internalizing and externalizing behaviors (23% and 25%, respectively). Specifically, Ritualistic/Sameness and Self-Injurious Behavior both predicted internalizing and externalizing behaviors, whereas Stereotypy only predicted internalizing behavior. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have key clinical implications that emphasize not only the consideration of sex, age, and cognitive level, but also specific RRBIs and co-occurring mental health problems, when assessing for ASD and designing individualized interventions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".