RAADS-R: Diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder in Adults

Post Reply New Topic

165

142

Social - 54
Interest - 28
Language - 8
Sensory - 42

Thought this was a lot better than most tests I've taken. A lot of the questions seemed to be from an autistic person's perspective instead of asking how other people would see you, or asking if you have traits that NTs think autistics have when we generally don't. I guess there's still some questions like that, but much less than, say, the ASQ or the EQ-SQ.

I do think they had the 'only now' vs 'only when younger' thing backwards. They said they were only really expecting people to answer 'only now' for reverse-scored questions, apparently. I'd really like to do a study sometime where I try out scoring it either way and see which way better distinguishes autism from other conditions, particularly adult-onset things like schizophrenia.

If you read through the article, under 'Materials' it says which questions count towards which subscales. Then in Table 6 it says what scores their sample got on the subscales.

I scored 162.

Total 169/240 (70.4%)
Social Relatedness 36/69 (52.2%)
Circumscribed Interests 74/84 (88.1%)
Sensory Motor 36/54 (66.7%)
Social Anxiety 26/36 (72.2%)

The test needs to be repaired. Iz Broke. I did however try my best to answer as well as I could in order to make this all scientific like. Many questions are poorly worded, or leave no room for "true sometimes" which would have been my answer.

May have reduced my score:
Twentyfour questions were answered by "somewhat true" - I have thus scored myself a zero on them.
Some questions I could not honestly answer re:under 16 and scored as if "not childhood"

May have increased my score:
For questions asking sight/sound I added "texture/smell" as these are my sensory issues.

Final tally: 132
Would be 156 if I included "1" point for all the "somewhat true" questions.
Would likely be higher if i could have fully answered re: tendancies in my youth.
Interestingly, I scored lower than average on interests category, though still within deviation.

I've gotten a 127, but this test is so confusing and I decided to make it easier to just go by scale of 0=none, 1=sometimes, 2=most times, 3=all of the time (and the other way on the NT questions). I'm sure my scores aren't really accurate after using that scale but I kept in mind of my childhood and all of that.

I actually like that the possible answers don't include for "degrees" (e.g. always, often, sometimes, never) as that seems to make them less subjective. I also like that it takes past behaviors into account.

My score reflects that I've improved my "social relatedness," for example, while not totally discounting the fact that when I was a kid I would have gotten a much worse score.

I got a 156 on this test if I scored it correctly. Some of the others that I scored "0" on I still sometimes do it now but not always so I just gave myself the 0 score. As an adult I have learned about friends more and as a young child I didn't want to make friends at all. The only people I am easily making friends with are people who go to this mental health organization called BHR and they all have mental illness. I get along with them beautifully because we both have problems. I understand them more than "normal" people which I don't understand at all. 99% of the questions I got either 3 or 0. Hardly anything in between.

84 if I did the summation correctly.

Socal Relatedness: 38 / 117 (32%)
Circumscribed Interests: 24 / 42 (57%)
Language: 5 / 21 (24%)
Sensory Motor: 17 / 60 (28%)

Total: 84 / 240 (35%)

I got 196

I think this is a good questionare but the questions require very good self-insight so I think very few people could actually answer it accurately.

200 after a number of revisions.

181

Based on the other reported scores in here, I was expecting a much lower number. As it is, I swung a few of my "sometimes/occassionally" answers to the NT side (never on the unasterisked and true on the asterisked), so the score is probably lower than if it had been administered properly.

0-65 with a mean of 30 is "normal", but 6 subjects who were diagnosed but tried to "appear" normal scored below the cutoff
Everything else is on the autism spectrum, with AS coming in at the mid 130s and HFA slightly above that.

I'm not sure that I understand what this is telling me (if anything). Is there any additional meaning that should be read into scores above the threshold? I couldn't get a sense of it from the write up. All it really seems to clearly indicate is that a higher score is more likely to be "not NT".

I guess that as it's a diagnostic tool, it's meant to be a guide for diagnosticians as to whether someone is on the spectrum, but it's not meant to definitively state whether someone IS on the spectrum or not. It even states that, at the discretion of the diagnostician, if someone scores below the threshold yet seems to be ASD, then their professional opinion should prevail over the score.

When I went for an ASD assessment, I believe this was the test that I did - or, at least, I did a test that was very close to this one. It took about an hour to administer and while I was never told the score, I do know that I scored above the threshold.