Observational and Reported Measures of Language and Pragmatics in Young People with Autism: A Comparison of Respondent Data and Gender Profiles

Abstract

Female children with autism spectrum disorder (FwASD) and performance intelligence quotient (PIQ) over 70 were compared with male children with ASD (MwASD) and typically developing (TD) controls (age 8-11 years) using a range of language and pragmatic measures. Functional ability was assessed using clinical observations and parent, teacher and self-reports. Results were compared between measures, and with direct assessments of language and pragmatics, in order to identify potential biases. This study found that FwASD performed better than MwASD but worse than TD controls on clinical observations of pragmatic ability. FwASD also performed worst overall on a parental measure of emotions. Additionally, there were patterns of differences between clinician, parent, teacher and self-reports and direct assessments, which indicate the need for assessment data to be collected from multiple informants. Findings also have implications for the accurate identification of ASD in females and appropriate provision of support.

Risk Management Analysis Using COBIT 4.1 at Vehicle Testing Management Information System

“…Quantitative study analysis helps analyse through data processing approaches using statistical or mathematical methods [14], and the use of quantitative techniques also needs to pay attention to ethics in research analysis so that ethical quality is also maintained [15]. The respondent profile aims to describe the strength of research data that is trusted, accurate, and accountable [16]. Based on the reliability test, it shows if the questionnaire has a consistent quality of questions so that it can become a questionnaire as a measuring tool.…”

A Subtle Profile With a Significant Impact: Language and Communication Difficulties for Autistic Females Without Intellectual Disability

“… Sturrock et al (2019b) proposed a battery of direct assessments targeting language (expressive and receptive) at multiple levels (word, sentence and above sentence-level/narrative), word knowledge (semantics), inference and vocabulary of emotion. In subsequent work, the authors proposed a series of functional communication measures ( Sturrock et al, 2019a ) including parent and child questionnaires and observational checklists for social use of language (pragmatic skills). Details of assessment measures are found in Supplementary Appendix 1 .…”

“…By contrast, sex/gender differences in pragmatic behaviors during discourse have had more attention in the wider literature. Sturrock et al (2019a) used the Pragmatic Rating Scale (PRS; Landa et al, 1992 ) as a measure of observable pragmatic features within semi-structured discourse (using the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Second Edition; Lord et al, 2012 ). Total PRS scores ( Sturrock et al, 2019a ) again showed autistic females performing better than autistic males but behind typically-developing females, replicating the pattern found in pragmatic (inference) tasks ( Sturrock et al, 2019b ).…”

“… Sturrock et al (2019a) used the Pragmatic Rating Scale (PRS; Landa et al, 1992 ) as a measure of observable pragmatic features within semi-structured discourse (using the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Second Edition; Lord et al, 2012 ). Total PRS scores ( Sturrock et al, 2019a ) again showed autistic females performing better than autistic males but behind typically-developing females, replicating the pattern found in pragmatic (inference) tasks ( Sturrock et al, 2019b ). Differences were driven by performance on discourse management, communicative use of speech and language and non-verbal skills.…”

“…This current article focuses on the smaller body of work investigating subtle sex/gender difference using specific measures of language and communication, in pragmatic and above sentence-level language. Principally, it will consider four clinically driven studies from the authors’ research group; using direct assessment ( Sturrock et al, 2019b ), observation and report measures ( Sturrock et al, 2019a ), child interviews ( Sturrock et al, 2021 ) and parental interviews (Sturrock et al,), and synthesizes these with recent findings from the wider literature. It proposes that autistic females most likely to be missed from diagnosis (those without intellectual disability: IQ ≥ 70) have a specific profile of language and communication skills, different from both autistic males and typically developing females, and that these differences make them prone to negative social, functional and emotional sequelae.…”