4.5 Article

The Broad Autism Phenotype Questionnaire: Prevalence and Diagnostic Classification

Journal

AUTISM RESEARCH
Volume 6, Issue 2, Pages 134-143

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/aur.1272

Keywords

autism; Broad Autism Phenotype; assessment; prevalence; genetics

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health, IDDRC Participant Registry Core, P30 [HD003110]
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [U10 DD000184-06, U50/CCU422345]
  3. Research Registry Core of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center at UNC-Chapel Hill [HD003110]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Broad Autism Phenotype Questionnaire (BAPQ) was administered to a large community-based sample of biological parents of children with autism (PCAs) and comparison parents (CPs) (n=1,692). Exploratory factor analysis and internal consistency parameters confirmed a robust three-factor structure of the BAPQ, corresponding to the proposed aloof, pragmatic language and rigidity subscales. Based upon the distribution of Broad Autism Phenotype (BAP) features in the general population, new normative cutoff values for BAPQ subscales were established that provide increased specificity relative to those previously reported, and thus enhance the utility of the BAPQ for diagnostically classifying the BAP. These cutoffs were also used to estimate prevalence of the BAP and its three components, with rates ranging between 1423% for PCAs and between 59% for CPs. Analysis of patterns of BAP characteristics within family members revealed that BAP features were more likely to co-occur in PCAs relative to CPs. Collectively, these findings extend the utility of the BAPQ and provide additional evidence that it is an efficient and reliable tool for disaggregating the heterogeneity of autism through the identification of meaningful subgroups of parents. Autism Res 2013, 6: 134143. (c) 2013 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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