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

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.



mmaestro
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

14 Aug 2007, 3:37 pm

rdos wrote:
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.

Ah, it was never my intention to suggest that, though. Clearly not expressing myself as well as I'd like. I was simply trying to say that, overall, the Autism Spectrum is a continuous line from low functioning autism, through high functioning, onto Asperger's, and then into NT as one continuous line (as I visualise it, anyway).
Quote:
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.

Well, I'm not sure if there are any firm numbers for Asperger's, at least none that I've seen. Best Autism guesses right now are around 1 in 150 children, if we accept the theory that the number is increasing (IMO this is because of genetic self-selection, but I accept this is far from proven), I'm assuming perhaps some of those included in that number are Asperger's, not high-functioning autism (assuming you believe there's a difference) and perhaps a similar number of definitive Asperger's (OK, so 1.5%?), then an increasing number of borderline cases in a bell curve? It's hard to guess without any firm number of diagnoses available. But 15% seems to me to be so high as to defy credulity.
Quote:
OTOH, people that suspect they are autistic will be more likely to do the test.

Exactly.
Quote:
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.

See, even then you're self-selecting. If we assume that Asperger's just doesn't exist in those with an IQ below 100, and that 100 is a rough average along a bell-curve for IQs (real-world seems to come out with an average anywhere from 95-105), then half your population won't have it straight out of the gate, and that half will not be at a university, and so wouldn't be likely to take our student's test. You've doubled the numbers right there. These people are also less likely to be on the internet and, I'd guess, even less likely to be online taking tests about ASDs.
Quote:
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.

The more I think about it, the less I think it's possible to come up with concrete numbers without asking doctors to report when they make diagnoses, and get numbers from central government. Anything else is just hoping.
Quote:
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.

Do you have a link to that study? I ought to read over it. I'm totally just speculating here.
How many NT controls were there, and were they just random people off the internet, did they get redirected from this site, or?...
Quote:
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.

Guess that just answered my above question. I still think that the numbers you'll likely get from this is probably skewed high.
Why were we talking about this, again?

Anyway, I think if I've got an overarching point, it's that I don't believe that any of these tests are a good way of trying to figure out the prevailance of ASDs in the general population. What I do think they're useful for is as a self-diagnostic tool amongst those who suspect they have ASDs, and also as a better way to understand the disorders we have. The test featured here excels in that latter part, or at least will once it's refined.


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

Music of the Moment: Radiohead - In Rainbows


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

14 Aug 2007, 4:03 pm

rdos wrote:
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.

I've already thought about this and this is idea is flawed. Some abilities are actually disabilities depending on the context or point of view such a hypersensitivity to sound. The whole point of ASC is it does not specifically record abilities but rather ASC components. These components have to be established enough to merit going on there, though these are still fairly broad areas. I'm not aiming to prove a specific theory pertaining to autism, and won’t set up the test accordingly.

It should show ADHD, dyslexia, dysphasia traits although the objective is to map everything relative to the autistic spectrum components. I myself am diagnosed with ASD co-morbid with ADHD and have serious executive dysfunction as well as dyslexia and other things. But really there is not clear interface between any of them. They do fall under ASC.

The abilities section is merely an additional possibly optional section. It is just something that may be used to cross reference with the ASC. I’m not a big fan of IQ test either. There is more general psychometric tests that I have done that are more broader than simply an IQ test, but they are best done with supervision as you said. I recon it is probably not necessarily to have the abilities test in there as it is up to health professionals if they want to cross-reference psychometric tests with the ASC. It was merely a response to people who said ASC didn’t show the ‘positive’ aspects of ASD. But really although I hope it will improve nuero-diversity, it’s purpose is primarily for analysis and not campaigning on nuero-diversity.

The aim is to start from a little bias as possible. Improve the objectivity of the questions. By objectivity I mean one person taking the test, will as close as possible to another person taking the test in how they would interpret questions. So definitely practical sections will play a part as well as improved questioning techniques. Then will use vector mapping and statistical training, etc to look for patterns in the data. Although the data will be collected centrally, anyone would be free to do their own analysis of that data. I’m interested in doing that myself, naturally.



mmaestro
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

14 Aug 2007, 4:11 pm

I don't know how realistic it would be to include, but one thing I thought might help would be phrasing some questions as milder forms of known disorders, for instance you could have "do you find it difficult to look someone else in the eye when in conversation," and "do you find it impossible to look someon else in the eye..." The reason is that I think that giving degrees can often be subjective, if you increase the number of questions and phrase different questions with varying degrees of severity, you'll likely get a more accurate picture of where someone sits on any given axis. I really didn't try to assess the questions in terms of ease of understanding, I'll maybe take a look at that tonight and post my thoughts.


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

Music of the Moment: Radiohead - In Rainbows


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

14 Aug 2007, 4:56 pm

Well the whole idea is to establish the 'severity' of individual component. But there is more than one way to skin a cat shall we say

I wouldn't read too much into the current questions. They where just to test out the usability of the concept. While it does show some apparent trends there are clearly going to objectivity and scalability problems.



Doc_Daneeka
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 195
Location: Toronto. But we call it Tarana.

14 Aug 2007, 5:05 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 =7.5
SI=8.75
L=4.5
POC=8.75
IR=3
RP=4.25
S=5
M=5.75



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

15 Aug 2007, 12:31 am

I think I've fugured out the optimal placement of the components for Aspie-quiz now.

First, I would have the figure rotated so that the straight line would be horisontal at the top and bottom. I would then devide it into two sections: The Aspie/neurodiversity section (the right side) and the NT section (the left side). Strangely enough, current groups allows the division of the groups into 4 Aspie groups (Aspie talent, Aspie communication, Aspie instinct and perception) and 4 NT groups (NT talent, NT communication, NT social and motor). I'll place talent at the top (which would make this the IQ/ability dimension) and perception + motor at the bottom (which would make this the physical adaptation dimension). The two communication groups would be on opposite sides, with NT social and Aspie instinct adjacent to them.

The scores for the NT groups would be inverted (10 - score) to make these ability-related instead of disability related. I think most people will get close to a circile that would be biased in some direction, for instance to the NT side or the Aspie side, to the ability side or to the perception / motor talent side.

Next I would map various DSM dxes to this concept. This can be done by using the average scores for these groups and creating an averaged presentation. That will give people a good idea about where different DSM dxes fit into the picture. ASDs, naturally, is the communication / social / instinct dimension.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

15 Aug 2007, 12:45 am

0_equals_true wrote:
I've already thought about this and this is idea is flawed. Some abilities are actually disabilities depending on the context or point of view such a hypersensitivity to sound.


Yes, sometimes it is hard to see the difference between ability and disability, but I don't think the idea is flawed. The groupings I suggested above are all ability-centered. Hypersensitivity is *not* a disability. Acute perception is absolutely a ability-related trait. One only needs to look at what is in this group to realize it must be an ability and not a disability. The same thing goes for what I call the Aspie communication group, which includes stims, tics, odd gestures and alike. These are all abilities. That they often leads to disabilities among NTs is not relevant for their function. The talent groups (especially Aspie talent) are also related to IQ. The NT talent group more or less is composed of executive function problems, dyslexia and dyscalculia.

0_equals_true wrote:
The whole point of ASC is it does not specifically record abilities but rather ASC components. These components have to be established enough to merit going on there, though these are still fairly broad areas. I'm not aiming to prove a specific theory pertaining to autism, and won’t set up the test accordingly.


Well, I am, and I think I already proved it ;-)

0_equals_true wrote:
The aim is to start from a little bias as possible. Improve the objectivity of the questions. By objectivity I mean one person taking the test, will as close as possible to another person taking the test in how they would interpret questions. So definitely practical sections will play a part as well as improved questioning techniques. Then will use vector mapping and statistical training, etc to look for patterns in the data. Although the data will be collected centrally, anyone would be free to do their own analysis of that data. I’m interested in doing that myself, naturally.


OK, I keep a close look at what you are doing to see if I can use it myself ;-)



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

15 Aug 2007, 7:35 am

Well rdos I think this is where our paths diverge. I wish you the best of luck with your theories. I think that it is important that people explore any theories. However I'm not going to endorse a particular theory and I want ASC to be a resource for all, it is through analysis that patterns be interpreted. I can't set the test up in such a way that it is an specifically aimed at a particular theory sorry.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

15 Aug 2007, 11:02 am

OK, I see, so your tools aren't as free as you claim, but only available for people that don't have theories?Cool. I think if I can write an operating system in x86-asm I quite likely can read about how to create graphics with PHP. No problem.

Besides, doing these kind of things without theory or background data doesn't seem very professional to me, but as I wrote before, I'll keep a look at what you do to see if something useful comes out of it or not.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

15 Aug 2007, 11:44 am

rdos wrote:
OK, I see, so your tools aren't as free as you claim, but only available for people that don't have theories?Cool. I think if I can write an operating system in x86-asm I quite likely can read about how to create graphics with PHP. No problem.

Besides, doing these kind of things without theory or background data doesn't seem very professional to me, but as I wrote before, I'll keep a look at what you do to see if something useful comes out of it or not.

No need to get shirty. Just said i wouldn't set up the asc for a particular theory. Though you probably are best looking up the php GD library:
http://uk.php.net/gd

There is no need to give credit. It is fairly easy library to use. My example might not be applicable to what you want to do. I use a gif image to form the plot background, then I use the imagepolygon to draw the plot using trig to create the vetors. You will need to tweak the angles because there is usually a graphical error for raster images.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

15 Aug 2007, 11:50 am

This is the example I use

Code:
<?
# Load plot template gif

$im = @imagecreatefromgif ("asc_wp3.gif");

# Allocate the line colours

$blue = imagecolorallocate($im, 0, 100, 255);
$white = imagecolorallocate($im, 255, 255, 0);

# Set line style

$style = array($blue, $blue, $blue, $blue, $blue, $blue, $blue, $blue, $blue, $white, $white, $white, $white);
imagesetstyle($im, $style);

# 8 ASC component vectors, angle adjusted to take into account shift error

$rbi=167- ($_GET[rbi]*13.5);
$ir=167 + ($_GET[ir]*13.5);
$m_x = (empty($_GET[m])) ? 150 : 150 - ($_GET[m]*13.5)*cos(44.77);
$m_y  = (empty($_GET[m])) ? 167 : 167 - ($_GET[m]*13.5)*sin(44.77);
$si_x = (empty($_GET[si])) ? 150 : 150 + ($_GET[si]*13.5)*cos(44.77);
$si_y  = (empty($_GET[si])) ? 167 : 167 - ($_GET[si]*13.5)*sin(44.77);
$l = (empty($_GET[lg])) ? 150 : 150 + ($_GET[lg]*13.5);
$s= (empty($_GET[s])) ? 150 : 150 - ($_GET[s]*13.5);
$rp_x = (empty($_GET[rp])) ? 150 : 150 - ($_GET[rp]*13.5)*cos(44.77);
$rp_y  = (empty($_GET[rp])) ? 167 : 167 + ($_GET[rp]*13.5)*sin(44.77);
$p_x = (empty($_GET[poc])) ? 150 : 150 + ($_GET[poc]*13.5)*cos(44.77);
$p_y  = (empty($_GET[poc])) ? 167 : 167 + ($_GET[poc]*13.5)*sin(44.77);

# Draw polygon

imagepolygon($im, array (
        150,   $rbi,
        $si_x,$si_y,
        $l, 167,
        $p_x, $p_y,
        150, $ir,
        $rp_x, $rp_y,       
        $s, 167,
        $m_x,$m_y
    ),
    8,
    IMG_COLOR_STYLED);

# Palletise image

imagetruecolortopalette($im,0,32);

# Output to gif image

header("Content-Type: image/gif");
imagegif($im);
?>



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

15 Aug 2007, 12:51 pm

OK, thanks. I already were on the track with GD. I thought you created the background with PHP as well which I'll probably do.

BTW, I haven't said anything about what you should do with ASC, or how you should set it up, I just offered you access to raw-data so you could improve the ASC. I thought your concept with the plots were nice, so I will implement this in the next stable version of Aspie-quiz as I've outlined above.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

15 Aug 2007, 1:05 pm

rdos wrote:
OK, thanks. I already were on the track with GD. I thought you created the background with PHP as well which I'll probably do.

BTW, I haven't said anything about what you should do with ASC, or how you should set it up, I just offered you access to raw-data so you could improve the ASC. I thought your concept with the plots were nice, so I will implement this in the next stable version of Aspie-quiz as I've outlined above.

Yes I could do that but for the purposes of this version I just knocked a quick one up. You can use gradient and image fills.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

15 Aug 2007, 2:31 pm

Image

the geometric term would be 'polygon,' or, more accurately, 'octagon' (the sides and angles do not have to be equal for the term to apply).

The 'hours per day mute' question meant, I presume, waking hours?
Literal thinking, lack of facial expression, and monotone voice weren't mentioned.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

15 Aug 2007, 2:48 pm

LKL wrote:
Image

the geometric term would be 'polygon,' or, more accurately, 'octagon' (the sides and angles do not have to be equal for the term to apply).

Who said they did?

LKL wrote:
The 'hours per day mute' question meant, I presume, waking hours?
Literal thinking, lack of facial expression, and monotone voice weren't mentioned.

Fair comment. I'm working on a more in depth test.