4.3 Article

Clinical characterization of adults with Asperger's syndrome assessed by self-report questionnaires based on depression, anxiety, and personality

Journal

RESEARCH IN AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS
Volume 5, Issue 4, Pages 1451-1458

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rasd.2011.02.005

Keywords

Asperger's syndrome; Clinical characterization; Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ); Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS); Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (L-SAS); NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23659558] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Diagnosing Asperger's syndrome (AS) in adults is difficult and efficient indicators for a precise diagnosis are important in the clinical setting. We examined the clinical characteristics of AS in 129 adults (median age, 32.0 years [range, 19-57]; 102 men and 27 women; AS group (n = 64; median age, 32.0 years [range, 19-50]; 50 men and 14 women), control group (n = 65; median age, 32.0 years [range, 19-57]; 52 men and 13 women) through administration of the Japanese version of the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ) and the Japanese version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (L-SAS), and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). AQ HADS, and L-SAS scores, and the 'Neuroticism' scores of the NEO-FFI were significantly higher in adults with AS than in controls. The 'Extraversion', 'Agreeableness', and 'Conscientiousness' scores of the NEO-FFI were significantly lower in adults with AS than in controls. Total score of the AQ correlated with the 'Anxiety' subscale score of the HADS and the 'Extraversion', 'Openness', and 'Conscientiousness' subscale scores of the NEO-FFI in adults with AS, but not in controls. The findings demonstrated that the AQ and other scales could be used to elucidate the clinical characteristics of AS in adults. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available