重新评估 "不知道 "回答选项的适当性:自闭症知识评估中作为系统误差来源的猜测率

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL
Camilla M. McMahon, Maryellen Brunson McClain, Cassity R. Haverkamp, Bryn Harris
{"title":"重新评估 \"不知道 \"回答选项的适当性:自闭症知识评估中作为系统误差来源的猜测率","authors":"Camilla M. McMahon, Maryellen Brunson McClain, Cassity R. Haverkamp, Bryn Harris","doi":"10.1007/s10803-024-06452-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Several autism knowledge assessments include “don’t know” as a response option. The inclusion of this response option may lead to systematic error, such that participants’ guessing rate affects the measurement of their autism knowledge. This study examines both predictors of guessing rate for autism knowledge and predictors of autism knowledge, including guessing rate. School-based professionals (<i>n</i> = 396) completed the Autism Spectrum Knowledge Scale Professional Version-Revised (ASKSP-R; McClain et al, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 50(3):998–1006, 2020). and the Autism Stigma and Knowledge Questionnaire (ASK-Q; Harrison et al, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 47(10):3281–3295, 2017). Both assessments include “don’t know” as a response option. Guessing rate was the strongest predictor of autism knowledge across both the ASKSP-R and the ASK-Q assessments. For the ASKSP-R, participants who were school psychologists, practicing for more years, had more autism-related clinical experiences, and who personally knew an autistic person had a higher guessing rate. School psychologists and participants who worked with more autistic students scored higher in autism knowledge. For the ASK-Q, participants with greater self-perceived autism knowledge had a higher guessing rate. Participants with a doctorate degree, who personally knew an autistic person, and who worked with more autistic students scored higher in autism knowledge. Guessing rate can be a source of systematic error on autism knowledge assessments. Potential solutions to correct for guessing rate are examined and recommended for future use.</p>","PeriodicalId":15148,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Re-Evaluating the Appropriateness of the “Don’t Know” Response Option: Guessing Rate as a Source of Systematic Error on Autism Knowledge Assessments\",\"authors\":\"Camilla M. McMahon, Maryellen Brunson McClain, Cassity R. Haverkamp, Bryn Harris\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10803-024-06452-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Several autism knowledge assessments include “don’t know” as a response option. The inclusion of this response option may lead to systematic error, such that participants’ guessing rate affects the measurement of their autism knowledge. This study examines both predictors of guessing rate for autism knowledge and predictors of autism knowledge, including guessing rate. School-based professionals (<i>n</i> = 396) completed the Autism Spectrum Knowledge Scale Professional Version-Revised (ASKSP-R; McClain et al, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 50(3):998–1006, 2020). and the Autism Stigma and Knowledge Questionnaire (ASK-Q; Harrison et al, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 47(10):3281–3295, 2017). Both assessments include “don’t know” as a response option. Guessing rate was the strongest predictor of autism knowledge across both the ASKSP-R and the ASK-Q assessments. For the ASKSP-R, participants who were school psychologists, practicing for more years, had more autism-related clinical experiences, and who personally knew an autistic person had a higher guessing rate. School psychologists and participants who worked with more autistic students scored higher in autism knowledge. For the ASK-Q, participants with greater self-perceived autism knowledge had a higher guessing rate. Participants with a doctorate degree, who personally knew an autistic person, and who worked with more autistic students scored higher in autism knowledge. Guessing rate can be a source of systematic error on autism knowledge assessments. Potential solutions to correct for guessing rate are examined and recommended for future use.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15148,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-024-06452-w\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-024-06452-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

一些自闭症知识评估将 "不知道 "作为一个回答选项。包含这一回答选项可能会导致系统误差,例如,参与者的猜测率会影响对其自闭症知识的测量。本研究考察了自闭症知识猜测率的预测因素和包括猜测率在内的自闭症知识预测因素。学校专业人员(n = 396)完成了自闭症知识量表专业版-修订版(ASKSP-R;McClain 等,《自闭症与发育障碍杂志》50(3):998-1006,2020 年)和自闭症耻辱与知识问卷(ASK-Q;Harrison 等,《自闭症与发育障碍杂志》47(10):3281-3295,2017 年)。这两项评估都将 "不知道 "作为一个回答选项。在 ASKSP-R 和 ASK-Q 评估中,猜测率是自闭症知识的最强预测指标。就 ASKSP-R 而言,学校心理学家、从业年限较长、拥有较多自闭症相关临床经验以及亲自认识自闭症患者的参与者的猜测率较高。学校心理学家和曾接触过更多自闭症学生的参与者在自闭症知识方面得分更高。对于 ASK-Q,自我感觉自闭症知识较多的参与者的猜测率较高。拥有博士学位、亲身了解自闭症患者以及接触过更多自闭症学生的参与者在自闭症知识方面得分更高。猜测率可能是自闭症知识评估中系统误差的一个来源。本文探讨了纠正猜测率的潜在解决方案,并建议今后使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Re-Evaluating the Appropriateness of the “Don’t Know” Response Option: Guessing Rate as a Source of Systematic Error on Autism Knowledge Assessments

Several autism knowledge assessments include “don’t know” as a response option. The inclusion of this response option may lead to systematic error, such that participants’ guessing rate affects the measurement of their autism knowledge. This study examines both predictors of guessing rate for autism knowledge and predictors of autism knowledge, including guessing rate. School-based professionals (n = 396) completed the Autism Spectrum Knowledge Scale Professional Version-Revised (ASKSP-R; McClain et al, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 50(3):998–1006, 2020). and the Autism Stigma and Knowledge Questionnaire (ASK-Q; Harrison et al, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 47(10):3281–3295, 2017). Both assessments include “don’t know” as a response option. Guessing rate was the strongest predictor of autism knowledge across both the ASKSP-R and the ASK-Q assessments. For the ASKSP-R, participants who were school psychologists, practicing for more years, had more autism-related clinical experiences, and who personally knew an autistic person had a higher guessing rate. School psychologists and participants who worked with more autistic students scored higher in autism knowledge. For the ASK-Q, participants with greater self-perceived autism knowledge had a higher guessing rate. Participants with a doctorate degree, who personally knew an autistic person, and who worked with more autistic students scored higher in autism knowledge. Guessing rate can be a source of systematic error on autism knowledge assessments. Potential solutions to correct for guessing rate are examined and recommended for future use.

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
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
10.30%
发文量
433
期刊介绍: The Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders seeks to advance theoretical and applied research as well as examine and evaluate clinical diagnoses and treatments for autism and related disabilities. JADD encourages research submissions on the causes of ASDs and related disorders, including genetic, immunological, and environmental factors; diagnosis and assessment tools (e.g., for early detection as well as behavioral and communications characteristics); and prevention and treatment options. Sample topics include: Social responsiveness in young children with autism Advances in diagnosing and reporting autism Omega-3 fatty acids to treat autism symptoms Parental and child adherence to behavioral and medical treatments for autism Increasing independent task completion by students with autism spectrum disorder Does laughter differ in children with autism? Predicting ASD diagnosis and social impairment in younger siblings of children with autism The effects of psychotropic and nonpsychotropic medication with adolescents and adults with ASD Increasing independence for individuals with ASDs Group interventions to promote social skills in school-aged children with ASDs Standard diagnostic measures for ASDs Substance abuse in adults with autism Differentiating between ADHD and autism symptoms Social competence and social skills training and interventions for children with ASDs Therapeutic horseback riding and social functioning in children with autism Authors and readers of the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders include sch olars, researchers, professionals, policy makers, and graduate students from a broad range of cross-disciplines, including developmental, clinical child, and school psychology; pediatrics; psychiatry; education; social work and counseling; speech, communication, and physical therapy; medicine and neuroscience; and public health.
×
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