Benefit or Problem: Exploration of How Response Options Affect Self-Reported Behaviors and Interests in Autistic Adults.

Assessment of restricted, repetitive behaviors (RRB) in autism evaluations often assumes that these behaviors negatively impact the individual. Qualitative studies of first-person accounts indicate the negative impact of the stigma associated with RRBs but also provide insights into the positive aspects. The current study explores how framing response options as negative (i.e., level of problem associated with occurrence) or positive (i.e., level of benefit associated with occurrence) affects RRB self-reports in autistic adults. Sixty-six autistic adults aged 18-59 filled out the Repetitive Behavior Scale-Revised (RBS-R) and a modified RBS-R+, assessing problems and benefits of reported behaviors, respectively. There was a moderate to strong correlation between the forms, each assessing problems and benefits in terms of the number of behaviors endorsed (r = 0.746) and the levels of benefits and problems (r = 0.637). Autistic adults reported a higher number of RRBs in the form that assessed problems, but the number of behaviors was comparable between the forms when counting in the response option of the occurrence of behavior without having a benefit. Despite some variability in the level of problems and the benefits across the subdomains of RRB, autistic adults largely rated comparable levels of associated benefits and problems, highlighting the complexity of RRBs as having both positive and negative impacts. Future screening and diagnostic tools for adults should aim to assess both positive and negative aspects of autistic features to afford a more nuanced understanding of individual experiences while still yielding diagnostically relevant information. Qualitative studies are needed to better understand the complex experiences associated with these behaviors; however, it may be important to ensure that options for endorsement of behaviors without a specific benefit are also needed to ensure some behaviors (e.g., self-injurious behaviors) are not missed.

Assessment of Social Connection among Autistic and Non-Autistic Adults: A Proof of Concept Study for the Connections with Others Scales.

BACKGROUND: A gap exists in measures available to assess levels of motivation, desire, and value associated with connecting with others. Moreover, few social connection scales have been developed with a goal of including autistic individuals in the sample to create a measure that has utility across neurodiverse populations. This study aims to develop a measure to assess different facets of social connection that is valid among both autistic and non-autistic adults. METHODS: The sample consisted of 200 participants recruited online. Participants completed an initial set of 35 items. Exploratory factor analyses and confirmatory factor analyses were performed. Four-factor models were produced by the EFAs. RESULTS: Item reduction resulted in the development of two 8-item scales: the Connections with Others Scale (CWOS) intended for the general population and the CWOS-Autistic Version (CWOS-AV) intended for autistic populations (CWOS-AV). Autistic participants had significantly greater motivation/desire to connect with others compared to non-autistic participants (t(195) = 3.39; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These measures will allow for greater ability to assess the motivation to connect with others, resulting in improved ability to produce research that clarifies theories and describes psychological phenomena.

The impact of measurement on clinical trials: Comparison of preliminary outcomes of a brief mobile intervention for autistic adults using multiple measurement approaches.

Initial studies of the emotional safety plan (ESP), a new, brief telehealth and mobile intervention to support autistic adults to cope with periods of distress, have reported feasibility and acceptability (Bal et al., 2023, Autism, 1-13). Herein we report the preliminary clinical outcomes of thirty-six autistic adults who developed a personalized ESP, with a specific interest in comparing "outcomes" demonstrated by different instruments and assessment frequencies in order to inform outcome measurement in future clinical trials. Comparison of pre-intervention baseline to post-monitoring outcome (pre-post) anxiety symptoms (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7]) and depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9]) revealed medium effect sizes for reduction in symptoms, though, low effect sizes were observed for pre-post Adult Self-report Anxiety and Depressive Problems scales and the Emotion Dysregulation Inventory Reactivity and Dysphoria scales. Weekly assessments showed an initial decrease in GAD-7 anxiety symptoms but no effect on weekly PHQ-9 depressive ratings. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) data suggested that, when participants reported feeling sad or agitated and used the ESP, reduced negative feelings and increased positive states were reported in subsequent EMA. Perhaps not surprisingly, preliminary outcomes of these feasibility trials differed depending on measure chosen. Implications for the design of clinical trials are discussed.

Measuring autism-associated traits in the general population: Factor structure and measurement invariance across sex and diagnosis status of the Social Communication Questionnaire.

LAY ABSTRACT: Using questionnaires in research relies on the expectation that they measure the same things across different groups of individuals. If this is not true, then interpretations of results can be misleading when researchers compare responses across different groups of individuals or use in it a group that differs from that in which the questionnaire was developed. For the questionnaire we investigated, the Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ), we found that parents of boys and girls responded to questionnaire items in largely the same way but that the SCQ measured traits and behaviors slightly differently depending on whether the children had autism. Based on these results, we concluded that researchers using this questionnaire should carefully consider these differences when deciding how to interpret findings. SCQ scores as a reflection of "autism-associated traits" in samples that are mostly or entirely made up of individuals without an autism diagnosis may be misleading and we encourage a more precise interpretation of scores as a broader indication of social-communicative and behavioral traits.