Page 2 of 5 [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Tempy
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 296

14 Aug 2007, 4:56 am

Image

# Repetitive or restricted Behaviours and Interests (RBI) - Stereotyped, repetitive behaviours and interests
# Social Impairment (SI) - Social understanding
# Language problems (L) - Speech, words and sentences
# Planning, Organization and Concentration problems (POC) - Cognitive skills related to being able to plan, organise and stay focused
# Imaging and Recall problems (IR) - Visualisation, imagination and remembering past events
# Reasoning and Problem solving problems (RP) - Cognitive skills related to rational deduction and working things out
# Sensory problems (S) - Impact of senses
# Motor problems (M) - Control of own movement

RBI =8.5
SI=9.25
L=5.75
POC=8
IR=5.5
RP=8.5
S=6
M=8



MrMacPhisto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,187
Location: Chatham

14 Aug 2007, 5:01 am

ASC - Plot
Here is your Autistic Spectrum Components plot:

Image

# Repetitive or restricted Behaviours and Interests (RBI) - Stereotyped, repetitive behaviours and interests
# Social Impairment (SI) - Social understanding
# Language problems (L) - Speech, words and sentences
# Planning, Organization and Concentration problems (POC) - Cognitive skills related to being able to plan, organise and stay focused
# Imaging and Recall problems (IR) - Visualisation, imagination and remembering past events
# Reasoning and Problem solving problems (RP) - Cognitive skills related to rational deduction and working things out
# Sensory problems (S) - Impact of senses
# Motor problems (M) - Control of own movement

RBI =5.75
SI=5
L=5.5
POC=6.5
IR=2
RP=5
S=5.75
M=4



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

14 Aug 2007, 6:48 am

My results:
Image

# Repetitive or restricted Behaviours and Interests (RBI) - Stereotyped, repetitive behaviours and interests
# Social Impairment (SI) - Social understanding
# Language problems (L) - Speech, words and sentences
# Planning, Organization and Concentration problems (POC) - Cognitive skills related to being able to plan, organise and stay focused
# Imaging and Recall problems (IR) - Visualisation, imagination and remembering past events
# Reasoning and Problem solving problems (RP) - Cognitive skills related to rational deduction and working things out
# Sensory problems (S) - Impact of senses
# Motor problems (M) - Control of own movement

RBI =6.5
SI=7.75
L=7.75
POC=6.75
IR=7.5
RP=2.75
S=4.75
M=6



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

14 Aug 2007, 7:22 am

I think this test could do much better if it was based on collected data and not just (mostly) arbitrary groupings of traits. While I do agree that some groupings are sound and consistent (from evidence in Aspie-quiz), others are collections of largely unrelated traits. Before one can put up these groupings, extensive research into trait correlations are needed, unless one believes in the arbitrary groupings in DSM.

Having said that, I really like the concept, and given the minimal data-collection this far, the results are not that bad.

I would like to ask you about the following:

1. Why don't you use the results (and most importantly) correlations in Aspie-quiz for creating groups? You can both study the official evaluation http://www.rdos.net/eng/aspeval and get access to SQL data from my database, provided you give me credit for collecting it if you publish it, and that you don't give it out to others without my permission.

2. Can I use your PHP-code for creating these diagrams for presenting my own groupings in this way in Aspie-quiz?

I wouldn't mind to collaborate with you on this issue.

I must say that a majority of my time on Aspie-quiz (which certainly translates to thousands of hours) have been trying to group traits together based on correlation. I might not have reached the optimal point yet, but at least I think the groupings are quite good at the moment. The group-group correlation report http://www.rdos.net/eng/aspeval/group.htm would also tell a lot about where on the circle to place things. Most related groups should be placed as close togehter as possible. I suppose one can solve this in a objective, matematical way inputing only the correlation matrix.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

14 Aug 2007, 10:44 am

rdos wrote:
I think this test could do much better if it was based on collected data and not just (mostly) arbitrary groupings of traits. While I do agree that some groupings are sound and consistent (from evidence in Aspie-quiz), others are collections of largely unrelated traits. Before one can put up these groupings, extensive research into trait correlations are needed, unless one believes in the arbitrary groupings in DSM.

Having said that, I really like the concept, and given the minimal data-collection this far, the results are not that bad.

I would like to ask you about the following:

1. Why don't you use the results (and most importantly) correlations in Aspie-quiz for creating groups? You can both study the official evaluation http://www.rdos.net/eng/aspeval and get access to SQL data from my database, provided you give me credit for collecting it if you publish it, and that you don't give it out to others without my permission.

2. Can I use your PHP-code for creating these diagrams for presenting my own groupings in this way in Aspie-quiz?

I wouldn't mind to collaborate with you on this issue.

I must say that a majority of my time on Aspie-quiz (which certainly translates to thousands of hours) have been trying to group traits together based on correlation. I might not have reached the optimal point yet, but at least I think the groupings are quite good at the moment. The group-group correlation report http://www.rdos.net/eng/aspeval/group.htm would also tell a lot about where on the circle to place things. Most related groups should be placed as close togehter as possible. I suppose one can solve this in a objective, matematical way inputing only the correlation matrix.


I agree with you about the grouping and said before I would want to split them up and have as many as 12 individual components. In actual fact on a radar plot it is possible to compare related things without having to formally group them simply by having them side by side and also it is useful to compare 'opposite' traits. The whole geometrical analysis it a key feature of this concept. You don't have to have established theories about groupings, so long as we improve the accuracy and objectivity of the component tests it should show them in the presentation. Someone suggested using statistical qualifiers to train the data. I plan on having open source front ends for distribution. It is important that the data be collated centrally as with other major phych tests.

I think it is a danger zone if we start basing theories on theories, generalisations on generalisations. We need to pick fairly established traits for the components. This will give us a good head start.

I'm happy collaborate, and would prefer if it is many people who are collaborating. It is my goal to contact various experts in the various component fields involved. The most important thing to note is this is not an Aspie test. It is to show where anyone (possibly 'NT') lies on the autistic spectrum (ASD). It comes from the position that the Asperger's, NLD, PDD-NOS, HFA, Kanner's, etc all have arbitrary cut offs. There is will be a separate abilities test and then and function calculation. This all to be deliberated. Function is always going to be an estimate, but I think you agree the cut off 70 IQ points is not a good assessment of function. The abilities test is not an 'autistic abilities' test but a general abilities test. There are several that are in widespread use.



kittenfluffies
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 519
Location: Gulfport, MS

14 Aug 2007, 11:31 am

Image

# Repetitive or restricted Behaviours and Interests (RBI) - Stereotyped, repetitive behaviours and interests
# Social Impairment (SI) - Social understanding
# Language problems (L) - Speech, words and sentences
# Planning, Organization and Concentration problems (POC) - Cognitive skills related to being able to plan, organise and stay focused
# Imaging and Recall problems (IR) - Visualisation, imagination and remembering past events
# Reasoning and Problem solving problems (RP) - Cognitive skills related to rational deduction and working things out
# Sensory problems (S) - Impact of senses
# Motor problems (M) - Control of own movement

RBI =8.5
SI=8
L=5.5
POC=8.25
IR=4
RP=7.75
S=4.75
M=6.75


_________________
Mew mew mew, mew mew mew mew? Mew. Mew mew mew mew, mew. Mew mew, mew. Mew!


mmaestro
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Aug 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 522
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA

14 Aug 2007, 12:13 pm

Very high functioning, which is what I suspected. My gut is that a lot of my life has meant that I've got very good coping skills for a lot of this stuff (my mum's an English teacher, for goodnessake, no wonder I've little difficulty expressing myself in written form and have a large vocabulary).

Image

RBI =7.25
SI=6
L=3
POC=5.25
IR=3.75
RP=4.25
S=3
M=4


_________________
"You're never more alone than when you're alone in a crowd"
-Captain Sheridan, Babylon 5

Music of the Moment: Radiohead - In Rainbows


mmaestro
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Aug 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 522
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA

14 Aug 2007, 12:19 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
It comes from the position that the Asperger's, NLD, PDD-NOS, HFA, Kanner's, etc all have arbitrary cut offs.

Yes! Yesyesyesyesyes! Thank you! I've seen so much "we're all so different," and anti-NT stuff on this forum, it's so refreshing to see someone understand that this is a continuous spectrum, reaching the whole way from NT through low functioning Autism. It would be interesting to try and figure out where the cutoffs are, but my gut is we might even be better served by an understanding of the spectrum where there are significant overlaps between each category, where someone could be understood to fit in under more than one bracket. For instance, I feel like I'm definitely AS, but very, very close to NT, my wife's definitely NT but with some AS traits.


_________________
"You're never more alone than when you're alone in a crowd"
-Captain Sheridan, Babylon 5

Music of the Moment: Radiohead - In Rainbows


rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

14 Aug 2007, 12:37 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
I agree with you about the grouping and said before I would want to split them up and have as many as 12 individual components.


The number of individual groups is arbitrary, because there does not exist any natural limits between groups. I suppose an optimation criteria could be to keep groups as clean as possible. I've used this in my groupings.

0_equals_true wrote:
In actual fact on a radar plot it is possible to compare related things without having to formally group them simply by having them side by side and also it is useful to compare 'opposite' traits.


You cannot have more than two dimensions at a time in a polar plot, which is a shortcoming. If you have 12 groups you cannot compare them all at the same time in a polar plot.

0_equals_true wrote:
The whole geometrical analysis it a key feature of this concept. You don't have to have established theories about groupings, so long as we improve the accuracy and objectivity of the component tests it should show them in the presentation. Someone suggested using statistical qualifiers to train the data. I plan on having open source front ends for distribution. It is important that the data be collated centrally as with other major phych tests.


OK, good that you will keep it open source. The Aspie-quiz evaluation is actually also open source and can be downloaded with SVN http://rdos.net/vc/viewvc.cgi/trunk/aspie-quiz/. However, the raw-data is not open source as I want to have a little control over it.

0_equals_true wrote:
I think it is a danger zone if we start basing theories on theories, generalisations on generalisations. We need to pick fairly established traits for the components. This will give us a good head start.


Actually, there is no theory and little subjectivity in Aspie-quiz. The score weights are fully automated and generated by factor-analysis of previous results. The grouping have been manual, but the reports on the groupings (and which question a group belongs to) are based on correlation and thus people's answers.

0_equals_true wrote:
I'm happy collaborate, and would prefer if it is many people who are collaborating. It is my goal to contact various experts in the various component fields involved. The most important thing to note is this is not an Aspie test.


Despite it's name, neither is Aspie-quiz. Aspie-quiz have evolved towards a neurodiversity test. The original intention was to develop an Aspie-only test, but it soon became apparant that ASDs could not be separated from other conditions like ADD/ADHD, Tourette, dyslexia and much more. OTOH, factor-analysis and score distributions have proved that neurodiversity is indeed a valid concept that has support in the 45,000 answers collected. This is so because factor-analysis always yields two major, largely complementary axises, and score distrubtions show clear signs of two overlapping bell-curves.


0_equals_true wrote:
It is to show where anyone (possibly 'NT') lies on the autistic spectrum (ASD). It comes from the position that the Asperger's, NLD, PDD-NOS, HFA, Kanner's, etc all have arbitrary cut offs.


Exactly, but ASDs also have arbitrary cut offs against ADHD, TS, dyslexia, dyscalculia, bipolar and at least partly schizophrenia. IOW, ASD is also an arbitrary condition. You need to include all neurodiversity conditions as well to get a sharp cut off.

0_equals_true wrote:
There is will be a separate abilities test and then and function calculation. This all to be deliberated. Function is always going to be an estimate, but I think you agree the cut off 70 IQ points is not a good assessment of function. The abilities test is not an 'autistic abilities' test but a general abilities test. There are several that are in widespread use.


I think it is very hard to assess IQ online. I've tried, and it was mostly a failure. You need to calibrate you're scores against large IQ test, which I have no idea how to do.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

14 Aug 2007, 12:40 pm

mmaestro wrote:
Yes! Yesyesyesyesyes! Thank you! I've seen so much "we're all so different," and anti-NT stuff on this forum, it's so refreshing to see someone understand that this is a continuous spectrum, reaching the whole way from NT through low functioning Autism.


You'd, wish ;-)

No, there is not a continous spectrum all the way from ASDs to NT. There is a continious spectrum between various neurodiversity conditions, but NT doesn't lie close to any of these, but rather represents the lack of neurodiversity-traits.



mmaestro
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Aug 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 522
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA

14 Aug 2007, 12:52 pm

rdos wrote:
mmaestro wrote:
Yes! Yesyesyesyesyes! Thank you! I've seen so much "we're all so different," and anti-NT stuff on this forum, it's so refreshing to see someone understand that this is a continuous spectrum, reaching the whole way from NT through low functioning Autism.


You'd, wish ;-)

No, there is not a continous spectrum all the way from ASDs to NT. There is a continious spectrum between various neurodiversity conditions, but NT doesn't lie close to any of these, but rather represents the lack of neurodiversity-traits.

How, then, do we explain the diversity of those on the ASD spectrum who do begin to approach NT? I'm using myself as an example, here. It's possible that my results are simply skewed by upbringing (as I've said on a previous thread somewhere, ask me these questions 10 or 15 years ago, and my Aspie scores would be much, much higher), but it seems like many of these traits, since we're already accepting then can be varying in severity, would logically reach the point where they crossed the line into NT, but still be there. What would we say to someone who is right on the borderline on each of the traits, or is into AS territory on one or two, and a lot closer to "normal" on the other ones? Do we just pretend these people don't exist?


_________________
"You're never more alone than when you're alone in a crowd"
-Captain Sheridan, Babylon 5

Music of the Moment: Radiohead - In Rainbows


rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

14 Aug 2007, 1:06 pm

mmaestro wrote:
How, then, do we explain the diversity of those on the ASD spectrum who do begin to approach NT?


I tried to above. There is not a single border between ASD and NTs, but multiple, like ADHD-NT, AS-NT, Bipolar-NT, dyslexia-NT, and so on. This is also reflected in the radar plots in this thread. NTs will generally score low on ALL dimensions, and this cannot be assigned as an extra dimension.

mmaestro wrote:
I'm using myself as an example, here. It's possible that my results are simply skewed by upbringing (as I've said on a previous thread somewhere, ask me these questions 10 or 15 years ago, and my Aspie scores would be much, much higher), but it seems like many of these traits, since we're already accepting then can be varying in severity, would logically reach the point where they crossed the line into NT, but still be there. What would we say to someone who is right on the borderline on each of the traits, or is into AS territory on one or two, and a lot closer to "normal" on the other ones? Do we just pretend these people don't exist?


There do exist an intermediate group in Aspie-quiz, but histograms of score distributions show that there is also a local minima between neurodiversity and NT. That's why I hypothesize that it is the summation of two independent bell-curves, which is the two factors that factor analysis yields. Also, more than 2/3s of all variation in answers could be attributed to these two factors. The remaining 1/3 is mostly environmental. IOW, almost all of human diversity is related either to NT or neurodiversity traits.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

14 Aug 2007, 1:12 pm

On second thoughts, I think it would be far better to present results in two radar plots. One plot would contain "positive" NT traits and the other "positive" Aspie/neurodiversity traits. By "positive" I mean that somebody has some traits (stims, focuses narrowly, have a certain set of communication style or certain talents). I think it is a bad idea to show lack of traits.

Alternatively, one might show NT traits on one side of the radar plot and Aspie/neurodiversity-traits on the other.



mmaestro
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Aug 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 522
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA

14 Aug 2007, 1:19 pm

Quote:
There is not a single border between ASD and NTs, but multiple, like ADHD-NT, AS-NT, Bipolar-NT, dyslexia-NT, and so on. This is also reflected in the radar plots in this thread.

Ah, I understand. So rather than my suggestion that someone who might be over the line in one or two aspects would be borderline, we say they're borderline on a more specific disorder? Am I reading that right?
Quote:
NTs will generally score low on ALL dimensions, and this cannot be assigned as an extra dimension.

Oh, agreed without question on that score, I think I'm looking at this from a different POV, where we might take these different aspects, plot out total area on the radar, and use that as a way to figure out where someone fits on the overall spectrum. From what you're saying, that's either impractical or simply outright wrong.
Quote:
There do exist an intermediate group in Aspie-quiz, but histograms of score distributions show that there is also a local minima between neurodiversity and NT. That's why I hypothesize that it is the summation of two independent bell-curves, which is the two factors that factor analysis yields.

Er... I was going to say I'm not convinced, but actually I'm just not convinced what you meant by that.
I do wonder, mostly because of the already low rate of diagnosis of those with Asperger's, whether there are more borderline people out there than is immediately apparent. If we assume the high estimate of those undiagnosed, that's 50% of the Asperger's population, who presumably are getting by to some degree or another (I'm guessing that it's the higher-functioning population who tend not to get a diagnosis). How much moreso, therefore, those who're on the continuum but move into NT territory. Those on the Autism Spectrum amount to less than 1% of the population, so naturally in a random sample of the population, borderline cases will be little more than a statistical blip, and so are unlikely to show up at all in a self-selected group like the ones you'll be getting on online quizzes.


_________________
"You're never more alone than when you're alone in a crowd"
-Captain Sheridan, Babylon 5

Music of the Moment: Radiohead - In Rainbows


nellos121
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 3 Aug 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 33

14 Aug 2007, 1:43 pm

Image

# Repetitive or restricted Behaviours and Interests (RBI) - Stereotyped, repetitive behaviours and interests
# Social Impairment (SI) - Social understanding
# Language problems (L) - Speech, words and sentences
# Planning, Organization and Concentration problems (POC) - Cognitive skills related to being able to plan, organise and stay focused
# Imaging and Recall problems (IR) - Visualisation, imagination and remembering past events
# Reasoning and Problem solving problems (RP) - Cognitive skills related to rational deduction and working things out
# Sensory problems (S) - Impact of senses
# Motor problems (M) - Control of own movement

RBI =9
SI=7.75
L=6.5
POC=9
IR=4.5
RP=5.75
S=5.25
M=4.5



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

14 Aug 2007, 2:01 pm

mmaestro wrote:
Ah, I understand. So rather than my suggestion that someone who might be over the line in one or two aspects would be borderline, we say they're borderline on a more specific disorder? Am I reading that right?


Yes, down to any groupings you might want to do, and regardless if you use DSM. the neurodiversity concept or something else.

mmaestro wrote:
Oh, agreed without question on that score, I think I'm looking at this from a different POV, where we might take these different aspects, plot out total area on the radar, and use that as a way to figure out where someone fits on the overall spectrum. From what you're saying, that's either impractical or simply outright wrong.


No, it is only wrong if you use NT as one of the aspects. You must use the magnitude of different aspects to mean degree of NT. Then it would be correct.

mmaestro wrote:
I do wonder, mostly because of the already low rate of diagnosis of those with Asperger's, whether there are more borderline people out there than is immediately apparent. If we assume the high estimate of those undiagnosed, that's 50% of the Asperger's population, who presumably are getting by to some degree or another (I'm guessing that it's the higher-functioning population who tend not to get a diagnosis). How much moreso, therefore, those who're on the continuum but move into NT territory. Those on the Autism Spectrum amount to less than 1% of the population


I think 1% is way, way to low. Some indications from the NT-control group in Aspie-quiz stable 2 gives 15% "Aspies", 24% borderline and 61% NTs. Of course, the percentage for the borderline group is arbitrary since it depends on where you put the cutoffs, but if you assign half of it to the Aspie-group, you end up with 27% Aspies. OTOH, people that suspect they are autistic will be more likely to do the test. A better control group would be the Norwegian psychology-student group that were told to do the test as favor. Their average Aspie-score is only 38, about half of that of the usual NT-control group. A fair guess would be that a random sample would yield at least 10% and possibly as much as 25% with higher Aspie-score than NT score.

Another way to look at it is to compare to the results of the AQ test. I featured the AQ test in a previous version, and over 600 people did both tests. From this information, I calculated conversion formulas between these tests. Using those, it turned out that the NT control group in Aspie-quiz largely had similar scores as Simon-Baron Cohens control group.

mmaestro wrote:
so naturally in a random sample of the population, borderline cases will be little more than a statistical blip, and so are unlikely to show up at all in a self-selected group like the ones you'll be getting on online quizzes.


But Aspie-quiz doesn't have a random sample. In most versions, the Aspie group is the largest, but usually they are pretty equal. That's because the test is mostly taken by people that suspect they are autistics, and because it mostly runs on autism-community sites.