McMahon Camilla M, McClain Maryellen Brunson, Wells Savannah, Thompson Sophia, Shahidullah Jeffrey D
Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Miami University, 1601 University Blvd., Hamilton, OH, 45011, USA.
Department of Psychology, Miami University, 90 North Patterson Avenue, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA.
J Autism Dev Disord. 2025 May;55(5):1629-1647. doi: 10.1007/s10803-024-06293-7. Epub 2024 Apr 7.
The goal of the current study was to conduct a substantive validity review of four autism knowledge assessments with prior psychometric support (Gillespie-Lynch in J Autism and Dev Disord 45(8):2553-2566, 2015; Harrison in J Autism and Dev Disord 47(10):3281-3295, 2017; McClain in J Autism and Dev Disord 50(3):998-1006, 2020; McMahon in Res Autism Spectr Disord 71:101499, 2020). 69 autism experts who served on the editorial board of one or more peer-reviewed autism journals evaluated the accuracy and ambiguity of autism knowledge questions. 34% of the questions were flagged as "potentially problematic" for accuracy, and 17% of the questions were flagged as "potentially problematic" for ambiguity. Autism expert feedback revealed three themes across ambiguous questions: (1) an oversimplification of mixed or still-evolving research literature, (2) an insufficient recognition of the heterogeneity of the autism spectrum, and (3) a lack of clarity in the question/answer prompt. Substantive validity of future autism knowledge assessments should be carefully evaluated via feedback from a diverse group of autism experts and/or potential respondents. Potentially problematic questions can be removed or modified to improve the validity of autism knowledge assessments.
本研究的目的是对四项先前具有心理测量学支持的自闭症知识评估进行实质性效度审查（吉莱斯皮 - 林奇，《自闭症与发育障碍杂志》，2015年，第45卷第8期，第2553 - 2566页；哈里森，《自闭症与发育障碍杂志》，2017年，第47卷第10期，第3281 - 3295页；麦克莱恩，《自闭症与发育障碍杂志》，2020年，第50卷第3期，第998 - 1006页；麦克马洪，《自闭症谱系障碍研究》，2020年，第71卷，第101499页）。在一个或多个同行评审的自闭症期刊编辑委员会任职的69位自闭症专家对自闭症知识问题的准确性和模糊性进行了评估。34%的问题被标记为在准确性方面“可能存在问题”，17%的问题被标记为在模糊性方面“可能存在问题”。自闭症专家的反馈揭示了模糊问题中的三个主题：（1）对混合或仍在发展的研究文献的过度简化，（2）对自闭症谱系异质性的认识不足，以及（3）问题/答案提示不够清晰。未来自闭症知识评估的实质性效度应通过来自不同群体的自闭症专家和/或潜在受访者的反馈进行仔细评估。可以删除或修改可能存在问题的问题，以提高自闭症知识评估的效度。
