4.5 Article

A Quick Measure of Theory of Mind in Autistic Adults: Decision Accuracy, Latency and Self-Awareness

Journal

JOURNAL OF AUTISM AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS
Volume 52, Issue 6, Pages 2479-2496

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10803-021-05166-7

Keywords

Autism; Theory of Mind assessment; Decision latency; Metacognitive monitoring

Funding

  1. ARC [DP 190100162]
  2. Flinders Research Grant
  3. Hamish Ramsay Fund
  4. ESRC Future Research Leaders Grant [ES/N001095/1]
  5. ESRC [ES/N001095/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A quick, forced-choice version of the Adult Theory of Mind (A-ToM) test was evaluated to assess perspective-taking difficulties in autistic adults, showing discriminant, concurrent, convergent, and divergent validity. The test can be administered quickly, with machine-scoring, minimal training, and is suitable for large-scale, live, or web-based testing. It allows measurement of response latency and self-awareness, enhancing understanding of perspective-taking difficulties in autistic individuals.
Autistic adults often experience difficulties in taking the perspective of others, potentially undermining their social interactions. We evaluated a quick, forced-choice version of the Adult Theory of Mind (A-ToM) test, which was designed to assess such difficulties and comprehensively evaluated by Brewer et al. (2017). The forced-choice version (the A-ToM-Q) demonstrated discriminant, concurrent, convergent and divergent validity using samples of autistic (N = 96) and non-autistic adults (N = 75). It can be administered in a few minutes and machine-scored, involves minimal training and facilitates large-scale, live, or web-based testing. It permits measurement of response latency and self-awareness, with response characteristics on both measures enhancing understanding of the nature and extent of perspective taking difficulties in autistic individuals.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available