自闭症儿童和语言障碍儿童在社会反应和移情方面存在差异,但在系统化行为方面没有差异

Pub Date : 2023-10-31 DOI:10.51561/cspsych.67.5.308
Michal Hrdlička, Tomáš Urbánek, Adam Mrkvička, Vladimír Komárek, Lenka Pospíšilová, Markéta Mohaplová, Marek Blatný, Iva Dudová
{"title":"自闭症儿童和语言障碍儿童在社会反应和移情方面存在差异,但在系统化行为方面没有差异","authors":"Michal Hrdlička, Tomáš Urbánek, Adam Mrkvička, Vladimír Komárek, Lenka Pospíšilová, Markéta Mohaplová, Marek Blatný, Iva Dudová","doi":"10.51561/cspsych.67.5.308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives. The Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS) and the Empathizing/Systemizing Quotient (EQ/SQ) scale are both used for the assessment of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This study aimed to investigate the use of both scales to assess another neurodevelopmental disorder, namely developmental dysphasia (DD). Additionally, we examined differences in social, empathetic, and systemizing characteristics between ASD and DD groups. Sample and settings. The authors examined 103 children with (1) ASD (n = 30, mean age 8.4 ± 2.6 years), (2) DD (n = 35, mean age 8.9 ± 2.3 years), and (3) healthy control children (HC; n = 38, mean age 9.2 ± 1.6 years) using the SRS and EQ/SQ assessments. Subjects with additional psychiatric diagnoses, e.g., intellectual disabilities and/or genetic syndromes, were excluded from the study. Statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, chi-square test, and Kruskal-Wallis test with the Bonferroni correction were used. Hypotheses. The null hypothesis was that there are no significant differences between the ASD, DD and HC subgroups on the Social Responsiveness Scale and on the Empathizing/Systemizing Quotients. Results. There were statistically significant differences on the SRS between the ASD, DD, and HC groups (97.0 vs. 52.0 vs. 29.0, p<0.001). Differences in EQ scores were also significant between the groups in total (17.0 vs. 30.0 vs. 35.0, p<0.001); however, post-hoc tests did not confirm a significant difference between the DD and HC groups. There were no statistically significant differences on the SQ score between the groups. Limitations. The gender imbalance of our subgroups and the relatively small sample size of our study were the main limitations of our study.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Autistic and dysphasic children differ in social responsiveness and empathy but not in systemizing behavior\",\"authors\":\"Michal Hrdlička, Tomáš Urbánek, Adam Mrkvička, Vladimír Komárek, Lenka Pospíšilová, Markéta Mohaplová, Marek Blatný, Iva Dudová\",\"doi\":\"10.51561/cspsych.67.5.308\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives. The Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS) and the Empathizing/Systemizing Quotient (EQ/SQ) scale are both used for the assessment of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This study aimed to investigate the use of both scales to assess another neurodevelopmental disorder, namely developmental dysphasia (DD). Additionally, we examined differences in social, empathetic, and systemizing characteristics between ASD and DD groups. Sample and settings. The authors examined 103 children with (1) ASD (n = 30, mean age 8.4 ± 2.6 years), (2) DD (n = 35, mean age 8.9 ± 2.3 years), and (3) healthy control children (HC; n = 38, mean age 9.2 ± 1.6 years) using the SRS and EQ/SQ assessments. Subjects with additional psychiatric diagnoses, e.g., intellectual disabilities and/or genetic syndromes, were excluded from the study. Statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, chi-square test, and Kruskal-Wallis test with the Bonferroni correction were used. Hypotheses. The null hypothesis was that there are no significant differences between the ASD, DD and HC subgroups on the Social Responsiveness Scale and on the Empathizing/Systemizing Quotients. Results. There were statistically significant differences on the SRS between the ASD, DD, and HC groups (97.0 vs. 52.0 vs. 29.0, p<0.001). Differences in EQ scores were also significant between the groups in total (17.0 vs. 30.0 vs. 35.0, p<0.001); however, post-hoc tests did not confirm a significant difference between the DD and HC groups. There were no statistically significant differences on the SQ score between the groups. Limitations. The gender imbalance of our subgroups and the relatively small sample size of our study were the main limitations of our study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.51561/cspsych.67.5.308\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51561/cspsych.67.5.308","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标。社会反应量表(SRS)和共情/系统化商数量表(EQ/SQ)都被用于自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)个体的评估。本研究旨在探讨使用这两种量表来评估另一种神经发育障碍,即发育性言语障碍(DD)。此外,我们还研究了ASD和DD群体在社交、同理心和系统化特征方面的差异。示例和设置。作者对103例儿童进行了检查:(1)ASD (n = 30,平均年龄8.4±2.6岁),(2)DD (n = 35,平均年龄8.9±2.3岁),(3)健康对照儿童(HC;n = 38,平均年龄9.2±1.6岁),采用SRS和EQ/SQ评估。有其他精神诊断的受试者,如智力残疾和/或遗传综合征,被排除在研究之外。统计分析。采用描述性统计、单因素方差分析、卡方检验和经Bonferroni校正的Kruskal-Wallis检验。假设。原假设是ASD、DD和HC亚组在社会反应量表和共情/系统化商数上没有显著差异。结果。ASD、DD和HC组的SRS差异有统计学意义(97.0 vs. 52.0 vs. 29.0, p<0.001)。总体而言,各组之间的情商得分差异也很显著(17.0 vs. 30.0 vs. 35.0, p<0.001);然而,事后测试没有证实DD组和HC组之间有显著差异。两组之间的心理素质得分没有统计学上的显著差异。的局限性。我们的亚组的性别不平衡和我们研究的样本量相对较小是我们研究的主要局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
Autistic and dysphasic children differ in social responsiveness and empathy but not in systemizing behavior
Objectives. The Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS) and the Empathizing/Systemizing Quotient (EQ/SQ) scale are both used for the assessment of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This study aimed to investigate the use of both scales to assess another neurodevelopmental disorder, namely developmental dysphasia (DD). Additionally, we examined differences in social, empathetic, and systemizing characteristics between ASD and DD groups. Sample and settings. The authors examined 103 children with (1) ASD (n = 30, mean age 8.4 ± 2.6 years), (2) DD (n = 35, mean age 8.9 ± 2.3 years), and (3) healthy control children (HC; n = 38, mean age 9.2 ± 1.6 years) using the SRS and EQ/SQ assessments. Subjects with additional psychiatric diagnoses, e.g., intellectual disabilities and/or genetic syndromes, were excluded from the study. Statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, chi-square test, and Kruskal-Wallis test with the Bonferroni correction were used. Hypotheses. The null hypothesis was that there are no significant differences between the ASD, DD and HC subgroups on the Social Responsiveness Scale and on the Empathizing/Systemizing Quotients. Results. There were statistically significant differences on the SRS between the ASD, DD, and HC groups (97.0 vs. 52.0 vs. 29.0, p<0.001). Differences in EQ scores were also significant between the groups in total (17.0 vs. 30.0 vs. 35.0, p<0.001); however, post-hoc tests did not confirm a significant difference between the DD and HC groups. There were no statistically significant differences on the SQ score between the groups. Limitations. The gender imbalance of our subgroups and the relatively small sample size of our study were the main limitations of our study.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信