Lee Hyein, Jadav Nikita, Wilkinson Ellen, Bal Vanessa H
Department of Clinical Psychology, Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA.
Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA.
Healthcare (Basel). 2024 Apr 27;12(9):911. doi: 10.3390/healthcare12090911.
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.
在自闭症评估中,对受限的重复行为(RRB)进行评估时,通常假定这些行为会对个体产生负面影响。对第一人称叙述的定性研究表明,与RRB相关的污名具有负面影响,但也能让人了解到其积极方面。本研究探讨了将回答选项设定为负面(即与行为发生相关的问题程度)或正面(即与行为发生相关的益处程度)如何影响成年自闭症患者对RRB的自我报告。66名年龄在18至59岁之间的成年自闭症患者填写了修订版重复行为量表(RBS-R)和修改后的RBS-R+,分别评估所报告行为的问题和益处。两种量表之间存在中度到强的相关性,每种量表都根据认可的行为数量(r = 0.746)以及益处和问题的程度(r = 0.637)来评估问题和益处。成年自闭症患者在评估问题的量表中报告的RRB数量较多,但在计算无益处行为发生的回答选项时,两种量表的行为数量相当。尽管RRB各子领域的问题和益处程度存在一些差异,但成年自闭症患者对相关益处和问题的评级在很大程度上相当,这突出了RRB具有正负两方面影响的复杂性。未来针对成年人的筛查和诊断工具应旨在评估自闭症特征的积极和消极方面,以便在提供诊断相关信息的同时,更细致入微地理解个体经历。需要进行定性研究以更好地理解与这些行为相关的复杂经历;然而,确保有认可无特定益处行为的选项也很重要,以确保不会遗漏某些行为(例如自伤行为)。