The Broad Autism Phenotype Questionnaire (BAPQ): Strengths, weaknesses and future improvements in Chinese version

Applying a Rasch model to the Broad Autism Phenotype Questionnaire: item severity analysis and differential test functioning of the English and Spanish versions

“…The following results would support the use of the original BAPQ and the BAPQ-SP: (i) an adequate item fit informing about the capability of the resulting item hierarchy to predict people patterns of responses (i.e., items statements should endorse progressively from the least to the most severe); (ii) separation indices indicating that it is possible to distinguish, at least, between two statistically different strata in the sample; (iii) item-person maps showing the BAPQ items are distributed covering the severity levels of the persons, and (iv) all the response categories being distinguishable for the respondents. We believe that our results will be in line with previous studies indicating adverse evidence based on the BAPQ internal structure (e.g., Lin et al, 2021;Stojković et al, 2018). Especially, a lack of unidimensionality of some BAPQ subscales is expected, mainly in the case of the Pragmatic Language or Rigid subscales (see Godoy-Giménez et al, 2018;Lin et al, 2021;Sasson et al, 2013a;Sharma and Bhushan, 2018;Stojković et al, 2018).…”

“…We believe that our results will be in line with previous studies indicating adverse evidence based on the BAPQ internal structure (e.g., Lin et al, 2021;Stojković et al, 2018). Especially, a lack of unidimensionality of some BAPQ subscales is expected, mainly in the case of the Pragmatic Language or Rigid subscales (see Godoy-Giménez et al, 2018;Lin et al, 2021;Sasson et al, 2013a;Sharma and Bhushan, 2018;Stojković et al, 2018).…”

“…Altogether, the presented results lead us to think that the BAPQ could have been a useful measurement tool for meas-uring the BAP in English populations with middle-high BAP severity levels according to the original BAP operationalization (Piven et al, 1997a). Nevertheless, this study, in conjunction with others, has provided adverse evidence about the internal structure of the BAPQ (e.g., Godoy-Giménez et al, 2018;Lin et al, 2021;Sasson et al, 2013a;Sharma and Bhushan, 2018;Stojković et al, 2018). These findings could be better understood considering the most updated BAP operationalization (Godoy-Giménez et al, 2021;Morrison et al, 2018;Sasson et al, 2013b) and suggest that a new BAP test based on an updated BAP definition (as the middle expression of the current two-dimensions operationalization of the ASD; APA, 2013; see Godoy-Giménez et al, 2021) should be built.…”

“…Unidimensionality problems in both Pragmatic Language subscales and Rigid one in the BAPQ-EN impeded further rating scale analysis (Bond & Fox, 2015) and, congruently with previous findings, provides negative validity evidence regarding subscales' internal structures. Particularly, Pragmatic Language adverse evidence was reported in Godoy-Giménez et al (2018), Sasson et al (2013a), and Sharma and Bhushan (2018); Rigid adverse evidence was reported in Lin et al (2021), and adverse evidence of both subscales in Stojković et al (2018). These findings could be better understood under the light of the most updated BAP operationalization (Godoy-Giménez et al, 2021) which revolves around two core domains paralleling it with the last ASD definition (APA, 2013) and includes some variations in the test content.…”