Adult outcomes in the population

Post Reply New Topic

What I am saying is that we should not dismiss the effects of intelligence and cognitive strengths in helping an autistic person function in various areas. In studies, higher IQ has been identified as prognostic indicator for bester outcome by adolescene or adulthood in multiple studies. There was one in which children with IQ in normal range were reassessed 20 years later in adulthood, and people who had cognitive gains (mostly in verbal iq) were in good/very good outcome group and people who had cognitive losses were in fair/poor outcome group. In these types of studies, the two factors that are usually associated with bester outcome are higher chidlhood iq and communicative speech by 4-6 age range. What these studies don't say is that if you have genius childhood iq, then you will have good adulthood outcome. I don't think that kind of study has been done.

This study used the children's global assessment scale (CGAS) as a measure of psychosocial functioning, the assessment of severity of autistic traits per PDD NOS as opposed to Autistic Disorder, and Intellectual level per MR as opposed to no MR as predictive factors of adult outcomes.

The adult outcomes were the highest among those individuals that had higher measures of psycho-social functioning per the (CGAS), along with higher intellectual level but the study determined that psycho-social functioning measured by the (CGAS) was the greatest determining factor of adult outcomes. The autistic symptoms of severity per Autistic Disorder as opposed to PDD NOS were determined not to make a substantial difference in adult outcomes, when an adjustment was made for (CGAS) and intellectual level.

Actually the study suggests that the severity of symptoms of the autistic traits do not make a substantial difference in outcome; it was determined that it was the (CGAS) psycho-social functioning and intellectual level that made the difference in adult outcomes.

Myre's quote is not very clear in providing a sentence describing the actual findings of the study in the conclusion linked below.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3360852/





Considering that all of these children studied were inpatients in a children's psychiatric hospital and 67% were assessed with intellectual disability, it is not reflective of the general demographic of the autism spectrum, not even by the restrictive standards of the CDC study where 38% of that group were assessed with intellectual disability and 24% were assessed with borderline intellectual disability. Higher intellectual level was only identified as non-MR in the linked study here for 33% of the individuals, so there is the potential that all of those individuals were in the borderline range of intellectual disability, except for the 11% of the individuals with Autistic Disorder.

The SFARI article described none of the limitations in the study, that made it sound like it could be applicable to the general autism spectrum. Pretty much the opposite limitation of what has been described in this thread with the mean IQ's of 130 for Asperger's and 120 for non Asperger's ASD disclosed in the thread, which is not a demographic that can be found in any scientifically based study of individuals on the spectrum, or even college graduates on average that score somewhere in the range of 112 to 115, depending on measure used.

Last edited by aghogday on 03 Jan 2013, 2:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

I am not dismissing it, but the effects are often exaggerated to the point that people will make a direct link between severity and intelligence when such a link does not seem to exist.

More summary statistics so far in terms of romantic relationships:

Out of the 41 respondents with confirmed ASDs to the questions in the OP concerning romantic relationships, 16 (or 39.0%) of them were currently in a romantic relationship. Out of the remaining 25 respondents who were not in a romantic relationship, 2 (or 8%) of them had been in a romantic relationship in the past and expressed interest in getting involved in a romantic relationship, 9 (or 36%) of them had been in a romantic relationship in the past, and 9 (or 36%) of them had expressed interest in getting involved in a romantic relationship. All in all, it seems that 32 (or 78%) of the 41 respondents with confirmed ASDs satisfy one of the following criteria in terms of romantic relationships: (i) currently in a romantic relationship (ii) had been in a romantic relationship in the past (iii) has interest in getting involved in a romantic relationship.

So, on average, based on the characteristics of the adult respondents with confirmed ASDs, an adult with an ASD (a mild form of it) will either have romance experience or be interested in getting it.

I have seen people make the link between functioning and intelligence, not between severity and intelligence. In autism research, severity is measured by ados and/or adir tests with scores on social, communication, and rrb scales. That is considered severity of autistic traits. In research studies, intellectual functioning is usually linked to functioning, which is measured by tests like global assessment of funcitoning, or outcome, which is usually measured by however the researchers want to measure it, usually a combination of education, employment, and social functioning as in this thread. In children, I have seen studies following up autism symptom severity over development, using tests like CARS. Children with higher iq in non-mr group had decrease in autism symptom severity over time, while children with lower iq in mr group did not. The study about the bloomers also measure autism symptom severity in children over 10+ years. The bloomer group was distinguished from severe autism, slow development group by lack of intellectual disability.

The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales are often used to distinguish functioning ability as it often differs from intellectual ability in autistic people.

I do not recall having seen anyone make a distinction between functioning and severity before, but my point is still that people tend to link "milder autism" to "higher intelligence," which is what I disagree with.

Also, my GAF relative to my intelligence is fairly low, so I do not understand how it is linked so closely to intellectual functioning.

Also, just to be clear - I do appreciate your explanations here, as it is information I did not have. I will modify my statements in the future to reflect the new information. Thank you.

Here are some more summary statistics as of right now:

Survey(based on N=14 young adults): 50% of the young adults had a good or better outcome.
Poll(based on N=49 young adults): 38.8% of the young adults had a good or better outcome.

These percentages were not different from each other.

Survey(based on N=26 full adults): 42.3% of the full adults had a good or better outcome.
Poll(based on N=97 full adults): 48.5% of the full adults had a good or better outcome.

These percentages were not different from each other.

Survey (based on N = 7 young adults): 71.4% of the young adults without a good or better outcome had a fair outcome.
Poll (based on N = 30 young adults): 63.3% of the young adults without a good or better outcome had a fair outcome.

These percentages were not different from each other.

Survey (based on N = 15 full adults): 86.7% of the full adults without a good or better outcome had a fair outcome.
Poll (based on N = 50 full adults): 50% of the full adults without a good or better outcome had a fair outcome.

These percentages were different from each other in the sense that the survey showed a higher percentage of adults (w/o a good or better outcome) who had a fair outcome than that shown by the actual poll.

All in all, with the exception of the distribution of the fair and restricted outcomes in the full adult group, the outcome distributions in the ASD adult population for both the survey respondents (N = 40) and the poll participants (N = 146) were the same.

50% is close to 30% higher than 38%, how is that not different?

71% is close to 11% higher than 63%, how is that not different?

48.5% is close to 13% higher than 42.3%, how is that not different?

What is the percentage statistical boundary that makes the percentages significantly different?

I'm just talking in terms of significant differences at the alpha=0.1 level. I'm saying that these differences were either not significantly different or they were significantly different at the alpha = 0.1 significance level.

Thanks for the clarification on your boundary; .11 and .13 seems to come close to that alpha=.1 level, but I'm not seeing it at all on the 50% vs. 38%, which is close to .3, but perhaps you did not mean to include that one inclusive of your alpha=.1 level? It's been a long time since I've been in a statistics class, but I don't think you subtract the .38 from the .50 to get .12 in an analysis like that. Please correct me if I'm incorrect.

[1] 144
[2] edit - wrong test, oops. should be 45
[3] Bachelor Degree
[4] BEd, Elementary Education
[5] 5 years
[6] no, far below
[7] 18 or 19 (revolving door)
[8] n/a
[9] 15
[10] Very Good
[11] 25+
[12] Diagnosed ASD

Last edited by hyperlexian on 05 Jan 2013, 8:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

[1] 160 (maximum for said test)
[2] 40+ (always over 40 when I take it)
[3] Grade 10 (left in year 11 of high school)
[4] -
[5] -
[6] -
[7] -
[8] -
[9] 29 (several dates in person -- couldn't handle it)
[10] Fair (two friends)
[11] 25+
[12] AS

alpha=0.1 means that the two statistical groups (poll and survey) are not different by the confidence level of 90%. (100*(1-alpha)) The higher the number of samples is from each groups the higher confidence level could be chosen, as 90% is fairly low. But we have only a very limited number of samples as of yet. In other words, the observed difference is not significant, we have no reason to believe that they (the groups) are different as of yet. The differences may seem large because few people answered.

[1] Most recent official IQ score
Never took one so no I have no idea.

[2] Most recent Autism Spectrum Quotient Test score
35, but I'm not really sure how I feel about that test.

[3] Highest level of education achieved
College

[4] Degree achieved and in what field (only applies to those who attended community college or above after high school and graduated)
Bachelor of science: software engineering (cum laude)

[5] How long did it take you to achieve your highest degree?
The standard four years.

[6] If employed, are you employed up to your potential? (i.e. the job you currently have requires the highest degree you hold).
Yes in the sense that my employer required atleast a bachelors degree to get the position. However, I don't feel like I'm using my skills to my potentional in my current job.

[7] If living independently, at what age did you move out and start living on your own?
N/A

[8] If you never have been in a romantic relationship, are you interested in getting into one?
Yes I'd be interested, but I think I'll have to work on having friends first before I try dating.

[9] If you have ever been in a romantic relationship, how old were you when you first got into one?
N/A

[10] Outcome
Fair. I have a job, but I still live with my parents and don't have any friends.

[11] Age Group
I'm 23.

[12] Diagnosis Group
Diagnosed with classic autism.

First, I don't want to sound condescending, I do it for greater good, so I apologize if I do.

I compensate for my attention deficit and general (mental) slowness by effort and high general intelligence. I am compensated by supportive parents and high education. I do use my intelligence to learn better social skills. I try to properly address my individual traits, learning style, way of acquiring new knowledge. My mind sees details just as the very big picture. The problem is with connecting the two by filling in the huge gap between them. It's like you can see the peaces of a puzzle and the picture on top of the box but can't start to put them together to form larger structures or the structures do not seem to have a meaning. So, I have to accept that I have to think differently on each levels of information and hope at the end I can see all the connections.

I try to be grateful and kind with people even if it's very hard. Despite my efforts I make social mistakes/blunders very often. Sometimes it's just plain impossible to balance "too humble" and "too assertive". Better accept it.

I'm adamant I want to develop and grab all opportunities of it. I enjoyed 13 years of mentoring from one of my friends. In the past two years since I came across ASDs I went through a thorough self-examination and subsequent self-correction and got better self-acceptance. I've read through a lot of material concerning living with an ASD. There are decent sources on the internet about social rules. I've gone trough therapies even. I've joined at least two autism social groups. The single most important rule I've learned from them is that one should have self-confidence. Since I've found it rather difficult I decided I'll further investigate this subject. I've learned I should speak up for myself and take care of myself and remind myself every time to do so when I'm about to derail. The therapy helped a lot in this respect.

Well before I discovered ASD I began to appreciate human relationships and even if I was poor at them I wanted something better instead of not wanting them at all.


I think I've read the same article as btbnnyr, and I totally agree with her. While there may be exceptions to a trend, it is expected that higher functioning comes from higher social ability and higher intelligence. Both factors can be developed on the expense of the other. And better overall functioning can be developed by appropriate nurturing and constant effort throughout life. This is the highest order of truth one has to accept. Everything boils down to it. One can not function well socially if there are severe issues with sensory sensitivity for example, and one can not process information well enough if there is too much background noise. Inability to divide attention can impair both social functioning and intelligence. Intelligence and social functioning (to which IQ and EQ are poor measures) is the alpha and omega of living among human beings and providing for ourselves.

You have to address every individual trait one by one in order to be a person with autism with the theoretically highest possible outcome for that individual. This primarily requires intelligence.


I was unemployed recently for two and a half months and I decided that if I get employed again I will do some things differently than before. This included compensation for my poor memory and slowness by extensive note making (I literally write down almost everything), accepting help from my colleagues, making efforts to understand their motives and needs better, utilizing my newly acquired knowledge of humans (and fulfill some of their "simple" needs), and last but not least wearing more elegant clothing than before, just to take myself more seriously and convey this message to others too.

I'm still having problems with hygiene sometimes. Of course when I'm going to work I'm not allowed to be loose but other times, well, I'm not too strict to myself. My apartment is a complete mess, shame on me, I had months to clean it properly. I may have sensory issues at my workplace but so far the most important source of my dissatisfaction, the radio is absent.

I think there are unacknowledged factors here. Whether it is a matter of severity of certain symptoms or a matter of having more than one kind of intelligence or some other thing not coming to mind or a combination of these things, I can't really say at this point.

My social skills are fairly terrible, and much of what I know about social things doesn't stick when I am in a social environment. I'm apt to forget something blatantly obvious like "the person you're talking to doesn't think exactly like you or isn't interested in the same things you are" and that latter one is something I finally started learning in 1996. I know all kinds of things about facial expressions that I don't really access in real time.

My executive functioning is rubbish. Doing the things I love to do is actively impaired, let alone the things I do not want to do. I spend so much time on forums because it gives me something to do when I can't organize myself enough to actually do these things (like playing my favorite video games or watching my favorite shows or movies or reading). At the very least, posting about things I love is enjoyable when the other things are less accessible.

Even so, I think pretty much everyone learns new things and applies them in daily life. I am not sure these are factors of higher intelligence so much as factors of intelligence that's simply high enough. None of my actual compensation I have implemented requires a genius intellect to figure out, and I imagine the same is true for most of these. The fact that I can learn the basics of playing a musical instrument in a matter of hours and have a tutor comment that he thought I must have been practicing for months is great, as is the fact that I can research and write a book in a matter of days and be complimented on how intensively I researched the topic, but these are not things I've been able to apply to adaptive living skills, and that is something I have tried hard to do for decades now.

Intelligence gives me a lot of abilities I do enjoy, but it doesn't seem to compensate much for practical living matters, not in my case.