How useful are the Adult Asperger Assessment and AQ-10 within an adult clinical population of all intellectual abilities?

Sex Differences in Adult Autism Screening: A Comparison of Current Self-Report and Retrospective Parent-Report Measures

This study investigated sex differences in adult autism screening by comparing self-reports on current traits (Autism Spectrum Quotient; AQ) and parent-reports on childhood traits (Relatives Questionnaire; RQ). The aim was to examine the differential contribution of these distinct measures to diagnostic classification in both sexes. The study compared 102 clinically diagnosed autistic adults (30 females) and 152 non-autistic adults (60 females), aged 17-35 years. Participants completed the AQ, while their parents completed the RQ. Multivariate analysis of variance and sex-stratified discriminant analyses were employed to evaluate measurement patterns in males and in females. Significant main effects were found for diagnostic group on both measures and for sex on the RQ only. Group × sex interactions were significant for both measures. Within the autistic group, males and females showed no significant difference in AQ scores, but females scored significantly lower than males on the RQ. Discriminant analyses revealed high classification accuracies for both males (95.1%) and females (96.7%), with different weighting patterns between males (AQ = 0.597 [CI: 0.413-0.720], RQ = 0.712 [CI: 0.553-0.789]) and females (AQ = 0.763 [CI: 0.637-0.898], RQ = 0.478 [CI: 0.191-0.616]). The findings suggest that current self-report may be more central for identifying autism in females, while a more balanced combination of current-self and past-parent reports may be optimal for males. These sex-specific patterns highlight the importance of considering both current self-reported traits and developmental history in adult autism screening, with potential implications for improving diagnostic accuracy across sexes.

The Effectiveness of RAADS-R as a Screening Tool for Adult ASD Populations

Adult referrals to specialist autism spectrum disorder diagnostic services have increased in recent years, placing strain on existing services. It was proposed that the Ritvo Autism Asperger's Diagnostic Scale could be used as a screening tool, in order to identify and prioritise patients most likely to receive an ASD diagnosis. This study evaluates the validity of the RAADS-R as a screening tool for ASD in an adult population. Retrospective case note analysis was used to evaluate the efficacy of the RAADS-R as a screening tool to predict ASD diagnostic outcomes in 50 service users of a NHS specialist autism service. Results indicate no association between RAADS-R scores and clinical diagnostic outcome, suggesting the RAADS-R is not an effective screening tool for identifying service users most likely to receive an ASD diagnosis. In conclusion, used as a self-report measure pre-full diagnostic assessment, the RAADS-R lacks predictive validity and is not a suitable screening tool for adults awaiting autism assessments. Future research should aim to identify reliable screening tools for this purpose.

AAA screening in adults with ASD: a retrospective cohort study

Purpose

The Adult Asperger Assessment (AAA), comprising the Autism Questionnaire, the Empathy Quiotient and the Relatives Questionnaire is a commonly used screening tool designed to identify adults who may benefit from a further clinical assessment for autism spectrum disorder. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the usefulness of this screening measure in a clinical setting.

Design/methodology/approach

This retrospective cohort study comprised of 192 service users referred for diagnostic assessment of Autism by a specialist service of the National Health Service. The authors evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the AAA by investigating if the Autism Questionnaire, the Empathy Quiotient and the Relatives Questionnaire were able to predict the diagnostic outcome of Autism in a clinical setting.

Findings

Scores from the Relatives Questionnaire can accurately predict diagnostic outcome. No evidence of accuracy for the Autism Questionnaire or the Empathy Quotient was apparent. Based on the findings, the authors recommend clinicians are cautious when interpreting results of the AAA.

Research limitations/implications

It should be acknowledged that the results may not be generalisable to whole populations. Also, the authors used the full item versions of the scales; therefore, the findings are most applicable to studies which did similar.

Originality/value

This study highlights the need for investigation into the lack of validation of commonly used screening measures in autistic populations.