Autism in Adults: A Survey - Part 7: Independent Living
This is part 7 of a series on a survey I did in 2012. To get background information, go to part 1. To read an analysis of executive dysfunction in the sample, go to part 2. To read an analysis of alexithymia in autism, go to part 3. To read an analysis of the results from a new questionnaire assessing reaction to eye contact, go to part 4, and to read an analysis of a new questionnaire about autism internal experience, go to part 5. Lastly, to read an analysis of a qualitative description of functional language impairments in this sample, go to part 6.
In this part, I will discuss my sample's functioning in the area of independent living. I assessed this in two ways - with a qualitative question asking if the person did or could live independently (defined as needing no more assistance than a non-disabled person of the same age), and with an adapted form of the Casey Life Skills Assessment, a tool for assessing independent living skills in youth aging out of foster care.
On the qualitative question, 65.9% of my sample either were currently living independently or felt that they were definitely capable of living independently, 12.2% were uncertain or felt they could life semi-independently, and 22% reported that they were definitely not capable of living independently.
Individuals who considered themselves capable of living independently were less likely to have expressive (r = .318, p = .045) or receptive (r = .392, p = .012) speech problems. AQ, Reaction to Eye Contact factors and FrSBe were not correlated with general impression of independent living ability.
There was a significant correlation between age and self-assessed independent living ability, with 40% of 17-24 year olds, 16.7% of 25-35 year olds and 8.3% of 36-60 year olds not being able to live independently. (An additional 13.3% of 17-24 year olds, 16.7% of 25-35 year olds and none of the 36-60 year olds were uncertain if they could live independently.) Independent living did not differ by gender.
The modified CLSA was scored on a 1-5 scale, with higher scores indicating more independence. The scores of each item were averaged to produce a final score between 1-5.
The average total score was 3.64+/-.595, with a range from 2.58-4.86. There were a couple questions that were US-specific, and may not be appropriate for an international sample, so I also re-calculated excluding those questions, but the results did not differ significantly for any analysis. Therefore, I will only discuss results including those questions. Although I don't have normative results to compare against my sample, the total score was significantly lower than the maximum possible score of 5.00, suggesting that most of my sample had difficulty with at least some of the areas assessed.
The 14 individuals who described themselves as capable of living independently and had CLSA total scores scored significantly higher on the CLSA ( p = .037), with an average score of 3.86+/-.652. In comparison, the 7 individuals who were uncertain or couldn't live independently had an average of 3.27+/-.317. As with self-assessed independence, CLSA total was positively correlated with age (r = .552, p = .006), although a three-way ANOVA by age category fell short of significance (p = .064). Sex was not significantly correlated with CLSA, but race was, with the 3 non-white subjects scoring poorer than the white participants (p = .018).
The CLSA total was also significantly negatively correlated with Autism Internal Experience factor 1 (r = -.588, p = .003) and factor 2 (r = -.482, p = .017). This suggested that individuals with poorer independent living skills tended to be highly visual thinkers with poor verbal thinking and form vivid mental impressions of sensory experiences.
It was also negatively correlated with Reaction to Eye Contact factor 1 (r = -.591, p = .001), suggesting that individuals with poorer independent living skills tended to find eye contact unpleasant and disruptive to functioning and feel pressured to make more eye contact than they were comfortable with. REC factor 2 was also negatively correlated (r = -.522) but since only 8 individuals had scores for both CLSA total and REC factor 2, it's difficult to know how reliable this result is. CLSA total was also negatively correlated with number of REC 'unsure' items, suggesting that low scorers were more likely to say they were unsure if an REC item applied to them.
Receptive speech was also significantly correlated with CLSA total (r = -.450, p .031), although sample size was poor. The three individuals with receptive speech problems and CLSA scores had an average score of 2.95+/-.273, while those with adequate receptive speech (n = 20) had an average score of 3.75+/-.577.
In addition, CLSA total scores were significantly negatively correlated with FrSBe total (r = -.730, p < .001), as well as all three FrSBe subscales (apathy r = -.751, p < .001; disinhibition r = -.470, p = .020; and executive dysfunction r = -.641, p = .001). This indicated a strong connection between frontal lobe functioning and independent living skills. TAS external was also negatively correlated with CLSA total (r = -.430, p = .036), suggesting that an externally oriented focus was associated with poorer independent living skills.
The CLSA comes with several subscales, representing theoretically distinct aspects of independent living ability. It's important to note that these scores are not completely independent, because some items were scored under multiple subscales. All subscales had average scores significantly lower than 5.00.
The permanency scale, which includes items 20, 38, 39, 47, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 77 and 78, assesses social support and connection to family, and had an average score of 3.84+/-.937, with a range of 1.42-5.00.
The daily living scale, which includes items 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98 and 99, assesses practical everyday self-care, and had an average of 4.10+/-.439, with a range of 3.27-5.00.
The self-care scale, which includes items 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84, assesses mainly response to emergencies and health-related self-care, and had an average of 3.79+/-.549, with a range of 2.69-4.94. Scores on this scale were correlated with general impression of independent living (p = .045), with individuals who could live independently scoring an average of 3.92+/-.602 as opposed to 3.53+/-.378 for the 'no'/'maybe' group.
Specific items that differed across independent living groups on this scale included caring for own injury or illness (item 84, p = .020), making own appointments (item 82, p = .034), having a place to go if they feel unsafe (item 72, p = .022) and knowing how to get benefits (item 76, p = .012). With the exception of knowing how to get benefits, the average score for the independent living group was 4.04-4.56 ('yes' to 'mostly yes') and the non-independent group scored an average of 3.08-3.85 ('somewhat' to 'mostly yes') across the other three items. How to get benefits was rated lower for both groups, with the independent group scoring an average of 3.15+/-1.262 ('somewhat' to 'mostly yes'), and the the non-independent group scoring 2.08+/-1.038 ('mostly no'). This indicates that ironically, the group more likely to need benefits would also have more difficulty getting them without another person's assistance.
The relationships and communication scale, which includes items 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67, assesses self-esteem, social skills and ability to engage in healthy loving relationships, and had an average of 3.76+/-.595, with a range of 2.50-4.94. This scale also significantly differed by independent living status (p = .046), with 23 independent individuals scoring an average of 3.93+/-.571 and 12 non-independent individuals scoring an average of 3.50+/-.619.
No individual items in this subscale had significantly different means across groups, but three had greater variance in the non-independent group: knowing a potential grandparent/aunt/uncle for children or future children (item 58, p = .001), ability to show others that they care (item 52, p = .036) and thinking about how one's choices impact others (item 54, p = .001). Since there was a ceiling effect, this variance is likely due to lower-scoring individuals being more common in the non-independent group, but this fell short of producing a significant difference in mean scores.
The housing and money management scale, which includes items 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51, assesses ability to manage money, pay bills, and maintain a stable housing situation. On this scale, my sample scored an average of 3.52+/-.851, with a range of 1.55-5.00. This scale showed the strongest differences by independent living status (p = .001), with an average of 3.86+/-.802 for the 24 independent individuals as opposed to 2.87+/-.632 for the 12 non-independent individuals.
As expected given how strongly this scale differed, many items were significantly affected by independent living status. The independent group earned higher scores on knowing the advantages and disadvantages of check cashing services and payday loans (item 45, p = .003), keeping records of income and bills (item 36, p = .040), knowing how to get ID and driver's license (item 34, p = .004), knowing how interest works on loans (item 51, p = .031), knowing how to rent an apartment (item 42, p = .029), knowing how to get emergency help paying for utilities (item 41, p = .004), knowing what happens if they break their rental lease (item 40, p = .044), ability to find safe affordable housing (item 44, p = .001), knowing the costs of moving (item 43, p = .035), planning for monthly expenses (item 37, p = .011) and knowing the costs of owning a car (item 33, p = .042).
Independent individuals scored 3.78-4.19 ('somewhat' to 'mostly yes') on most of the items that differed across groups, with the non-independent individuals scoring 1.69-2.92 ('no' to 'mostly no') on those items. Two items had lower scores - keeping records of income and bills and knowing how to get help paying for utilities. Independent individuals scored 3.30+/-1.295 on recording income and bills (compared with 2.31+/-1.548 for the non-independent group) and 2.85+/-1.460 (compared with 1.58+/-.996) on knowing how to get emergency help paying for utilities.
In addition, non-independent individuals showed more variance in knowing someone to live with if they needed (item 39, p = .001), understanding disadvantages of credit cards (item 50, p = .023), knowing what happens if they break a rental lease (p = .001), knowing the importance of a good credit score (item 49, p = .001), using online banking (item 46, p = .007) and knowing costs of moving (p = .017). They showed less variance in knowing how to get emergency help in paying utilities (p = .048). These differences in variance were likely due to ceiling and floor effects, since the items with more variance in the non-independent group had independent group scores close to 5 (and non-independent group scores ranging from 2.62-4.15), and the one item with less variance in the non-independent group had scores close to 1 in that group.
The work and study life scale, which includes items 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, assesses ability to handle a job or education, and had an average of 3.51+/-.839, with a range of 1.33-4.89. This is the scale that included the US-specific items. Although removing those items raised the maximum score to 5.00, it did not significantly change the mean score. Both the standard and non_US versions of this scale correlated significantly with independent living status (p = .037-.049), with the standard version resulting in an average of 3.78+/-.864 for the 20 independent individuals and 3.12+/-.676 for the non-independent individuals.
Three items differed significantly by independent living group. Independent individuals were more likely to know what employee benefits were (item 26, p = .019), be able to get help with an income tax form (item 21, p = .045) and be able to fill out a W4 exemption (item 27, p = .007). The independent group's scores ranged from 3.37-3.78 ('somewhat' to 'mostly yes') while the non-independent group's scores ranged from 2.00-2.69 ('mostly no' to 'somewhat').
Two items showed different variances - knowing what harassment and discrimination are had less variance in the non-independent group (item 25, p = .016) while having someone who cared how they were doing at work had more variance (item 20, p = .012). In both cases, this appeared to be due to ceiling effects - surprisingly, the non-independent group appeared to be more likely to understand harassment and discrimination.
The career and education planning scale, which includes items 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, assesses plans for career and educational advancement, and had an average of 3.12, with a range of 1.50-5.00.
Lastly, the looking forward scale, which includes items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, assesses general feelings of hope for the future, and had a mean of 3.23+/-.687, with a range of 1.71-4.86.
I also performed a factor analysis. The scree plot suggested 4 factors, which were extracted.
The largest factor, factor 1, included items 27 (.874), 35 (.855), 33 (.815), 79 (.802), 30 (.799), 51 (.797), 28 (.792), 83 (.790), 85 (.789), 23 (.788), 45 (.782), 43 (.763), 73 (.753), 34 (.728), 44 (.722), 21 (.708), 42 (.706), 93 (.700), 15 (.700), 57 (.695), 48 (.678), 82 (.669), 91 (.664), 76 (.662), 14 (.643), 81 (.626), 29 (.624), 26 (.621), 17 (.607), 31 (.597), 50 (.592), 8 (.592), 12 (.527), 68 (.526), 97 (.500), 96 (.380), 32 (.368) and 89 (.334). These items focused on a wide range of independent living scales, particularly items which described knowing how to do various independent living tasks. Low scorers on this scale would have difficulty with housing, employment, money management, managing their own health, and various other aspects of self-care.
This factor was positively correlated with age (r = .657, p < .001). A three-way ANOVA between three age categories was significant (p = .005), with a post-hoc analysis finding a significant difference between 17-24 year olds and 36-60 year olds. (p < .001). The 25-35 year old group was intermediate and not significantly different from either age group. None of the CLSA factors differed by sex.
The average score on this factor was 3.53+/-.888, with a range of 1.50-4.98. This factor was significantly correlated with independent living group (r = .477, p = .014), and was the only factor that correlated with that. It was also negatively correlated with Autism Internal Experience factor 1, suggesting that low scorers on this factor tended to be strongly visual thinkers and poor at verbal thinking. Receptive speech problems were also correlated with this scale (r = -.520, p = .005). In addition, factor 1 was strongly correlated with FrSBe total (r = -.422, p = .028) and apathy (r = -.565, p = .001), suggesting that low scorers on this scale tended to have frontal lobe problems, especially a lack of motivation.
Factor 2 included items 78 (.919), 5 (.911), 61 (.876), 58 (.839), 77 (.822), 39 (.794), 60 (.785), 47 (.757), 59 (.730), 38 (.729), 20 (.693), 62 (.634), 90 (.596), 4 (.566), 55 (.552), 66 (.517), 13 (.513), 54 (.451), 94 (.449), 52 (.444), 41 (.400), 36 (.396) and 65 (.353). Most of the items related to social supports, social skills, and prosocial behavior. Low scorers on this scale would be socially isolated, have poor social skills, and be somewhat abrasive individuals.
This factor was also positively correlated with age (r = .384, p < .001), but a three-way ANOVA fell short of significance (p = .054).
The average score on this factor was 3.61+/-.845, with a range of 1.30-4.91. This factor was significantly negatively correlated with AQ attention switching (r = -.353, p = .032), indicating that low scorers on CLSA factor 2 tended to have strong interests and difficulty shifting attention. This factor was also negatively correlated with FrSBe total (r = -.552, p = .001), and all three subscales (apathy r = -.606, p < .001; disinhibition r = -.332, p = .045; and executive dysfunction r = -.434).
Factor 3 included items 2 (.746), 19 (.721), 10 (.690), 53 (.677), 63 (.646), 80 (.633), 18 (.629), 67 (.583), 16 (.573), 9 (.562), 6 (.560), 71 (.506), 87 (.502), 11 (.488), 1 (.488), 22 (.486), 7 (.466), 37 (.400) and 74 (.389). Most of the items here related either to feeling self-confident and coping well or to planning ahead in practical matters. Low scorers on this scale would be insecure, have difficulty asserting themselves and lose their temper easily; they would also lack a clear sense of what future they want, not be actively working to accomplish goals and show a tendency to poor planning in areas of daily life.
The average score on this factor was 3.35+/-.692, with a range of 1.53-4.68. This factor was significantly negatively correlated with AQ attention to detail (r = -.361, p = .039), indicating that low scorers tended to notice and be interested in a lot of subtle details, possibly missing the big picture. One possibility is that this tendency to focus on details may have made them more susceptible to certain cognitive distortions that involve excessively generalizing from a single negative detail, such as overgeneralization, filtering and global labeling. This could explain the link between emotional problems and executive problems in this factor.
This factor was also negatively correlated with Autism Internal Experience factor 2 (r = -.361, p = .030), suggesting that low scorers tended to form vivid mental impressions of sensory experiences. Like other CLSA factors, this factor was also negatively correlated with FrSBe total score (r = -.617, p < .001), apathy (r = -.642, p < .001), disinhibition (r = -.435, p = .009), and executive dysfunction (r = -.431, p = .011). In addition, this factor was negatively correlated with TAS total (r = -.488, p = .003), difficulty describing emotions (r = -.510, p = .002), and difficulty identifying emotions (r = -.587, p < .001).
Factor 4 included items 64 (.619), 99 (.598), 46 (.587), 98 (.549), 84 (.549), 75 (-.521), 56 (.504), 49 (.404), 86 (.447), 72 (.427), 69 (.407), 95 (.398), 25 (.372) and 70 (.360). These items include a mix of items related to effective computer skills, ability to keep self safe from danger, and a strong racial/ethnic identity. Strangely enough, this factor also had the only negative-loading item - high scorers on this factor were less likely to bathe daily. Low scorers, in addition to bathing regularly, would tend to be poor with computers, not know how to avoid or escape dangerous situations, and have a poor sense of ethnic identity.
The average score on this factor was 4.14+/-.458, with a range of 3.00-4.93. This factor was significantly negatively correlated with AQ communication (r = -.339, p = .037), indicating that low scorers on this factor tend to have difficulty with pragmatic speech and tone of voice. It also correlated negatively with Autism Internal Experience factor 1 (r = -.432, p = .005) and factor 2 (r = -.341, p = .031), suggesting that low scorers tended to be very visual, have difficulty with verbal thought, and form vivid sensory impressions.
This factor was also negatively correlated with FrSBe disinhibition (r = -.344, p = .032) and executive dysfunction r = -.339, p = .037). In addition, the 4 non-white subjects scored significantly poorer than the white subjects (p = .034).
One item, item 3, did not load significantly on any factor. This item reflected feeling 'ready' for the next phase in life. Perhaps with the wide age range in my sample, this item was less meaningful - a 17 year old is facing a very different 'next phase in life' than a 60 year old is.
In general, many subjects seemed to struggle with aspects of independent living. Although I don't have normative data, even many subjects who were living independently responded 'somewhat' to 'no' on some important items.
Particularly concerning were the responses to a number of items reflecting abuse risk. Only 58.2% felt reasonably confident that they knew the signs of an abusive relationship, 37.3% felt they could speak up for themselves, 65.1% could turn down a sexual advance, 71.5% had somewhere they could go if they felt unsafe and 52.4% felt that they could get themselves away from a dangerous situation. This suggests that between 28-63% lacked the skills necessary to protect themselves from abuse or violence, including sexual violence.
Worst, 22% suggested that their relationships included hitting, slapping, shoving, being made fun of or name calling, which indicates that they may be currently receiving verbal or physical abuse (or else perpetrating it). In addition, 34.9% dealt with anger by hurting others and/or damaging objects. These abuse risk items were mostly not correlated with independent living status (with the exception of having a place to go if they felt unsafe).
Research has consistently found a higher risk of abuse victimization among children with disabilities, and among autistic children and adults. Unfortunately, disabled people can often be 'easy targets', making it particularly important that disabled individuals are given strategies to prevent abuse. Unfortunately, treatment practices such as hand-over-hand, compliance training and forced eye contact seem likely to increase abuse risk, since they undermine an autistic child's ability to say no and normalize situations that would generally be seen as overly intrusive control.
With regards to general independent living, this research suggests that the strongest predictor of independent living is frontal lobe problems - a link found in other populations as well, such as elderly, patients with frontal lobe injuries, and individuals with schizophrenia. Autistic traits, visual thinking, receptive speech impairment, alexithymia and difficulty with eye contact all had links with independent living as well. However, since this was a correlational study, causal links can't be determined.
In the course of this study, I found that independent living status was predicted by both overall CLSA score and the scores of many specific items. The CLSA may be a useful assessment of an autistic person's ability to live independently. It may also be a good guide for treatment goals - focusing on building skills in the specific areas that differ between autistic people who can and can't live independently might be effective in improving an autistic person's independence.
It's also important to note that in many ways, older participants had better independent living skills than younger participants. This may be a sign that independent living skills improve throughout adulthood (anecdotally, this is certainly true of me - although I still can't live independently at 26, my independent living skills have increased a great deal since I was 17).
However, this is a cross-sectional comparison, not a longitudinal one, and cohort differences could account for this effect. In particular, during the 60s and 70s, when my oldest participants were emerging adults, the costs of housing and education were much lower and entry-level employment was more readily available than it is now. This makes the challenges of becoming independent much greater even for NT young adults.
In addition, my study's selection factors may affect different generations differently. My study was an online survey posted on an online support group, which automatically selects for a minimum level of comfort and competence with computers. Likely many of my younger participants, like me and my 18 year old brother, were first exposed to computers in early childhood, which was impossible for my older participants. It may be that older autistic individuals with independent living impairments are less likely to achieve sufficient computer competence in adulthood than a similarly affected individual with childhood computer exposure.
In general, this study confirmed the well-documented difficulties in independent living among autistic adults - even individuals who show adequate language and intelligence. Unfortunately, many services aimed at assisting autistic adults with independent living require a diagnosis of cognitive disability as well, which leaves a substantial group of autistic individuals falling through the cracks. In addition, the very disability that renders these individuals in need of support also makes them less likely to be able to access whatever support is available, or even know which supports they are eligible for.
In this part, I will discuss my sample's functioning in the area of independent living. I assessed this in two ways - with a qualitative question asking if the person did or could live independently (defined as needing no more assistance than a non-disabled person of the same age), and with an adapted form of the Casey Life Skills Assessment, a tool for assessing independent living skills in youth aging out of foster care.
On the qualitative question, 65.9% of my sample either were currently living independently or felt that they were definitely capable of living independently, 12.2% were uncertain or felt they could life semi-independently, and 22% reported that they were definitely not capable of living independently.
Individuals who considered themselves capable of living independently were less likely to have expressive (r = .318, p = .045) or receptive (r = .392, p = .012) speech problems. AQ, Reaction to Eye Contact factors and FrSBe were not correlated with general impression of independent living ability.
There was a significant correlation between age and self-assessed independent living ability, with 40% of 17-24 year olds, 16.7% of 25-35 year olds and 8.3% of 36-60 year olds not being able to live independently. (An additional 13.3% of 17-24 year olds, 16.7% of 25-35 year olds and none of the 36-60 year olds were uncertain if they could live independently.) Independent living did not differ by gender.
The modified CLSA was scored on a 1-5 scale, with higher scores indicating more independence. The scores of each item were averaged to produce a final score between 1-5.
The average total score was 3.64+/-.595, with a range from 2.58-4.86. There were a couple questions that were US-specific, and may not be appropriate for an international sample, so I also re-calculated excluding those questions, but the results did not differ significantly for any analysis. Therefore, I will only discuss results including those questions. Although I don't have normative results to compare against my sample, the total score was significantly lower than the maximum possible score of 5.00, suggesting that most of my sample had difficulty with at least some of the areas assessed.
The 14 individuals who described themselves as capable of living independently and had CLSA total scores scored significantly higher on the CLSA ( p = .037), with an average score of 3.86+/-.652. In comparison, the 7 individuals who were uncertain or couldn't live independently had an average of 3.27+/-.317. As with self-assessed independence, CLSA total was positively correlated with age (r = .552, p = .006), although a three-way ANOVA by age category fell short of significance (p = .064). Sex was not significantly correlated with CLSA, but race was, with the 3 non-white subjects scoring poorer than the white participants (p = .018).
The CLSA total was also significantly negatively correlated with Autism Internal Experience factor 1 (r = -.588, p = .003) and factor 2 (r = -.482, p = .017). This suggested that individuals with poorer independent living skills tended to be highly visual thinkers with poor verbal thinking and form vivid mental impressions of sensory experiences.
It was also negatively correlated with Reaction to Eye Contact factor 1 (r = -.591, p = .001), suggesting that individuals with poorer independent living skills tended to find eye contact unpleasant and disruptive to functioning and feel pressured to make more eye contact than they were comfortable with. REC factor 2 was also negatively correlated (r = -.522) but since only 8 individuals had scores for both CLSA total and REC factor 2, it's difficult to know how reliable this result is. CLSA total was also negatively correlated with number of REC 'unsure' items, suggesting that low scorers were more likely to say they were unsure if an REC item applied to them.
Receptive speech was also significantly correlated with CLSA total (r = -.450, p .031), although sample size was poor. The three individuals with receptive speech problems and CLSA scores had an average score of 2.95+/-.273, while those with adequate receptive speech (n = 20) had an average score of 3.75+/-.577.
In addition, CLSA total scores were significantly negatively correlated with FrSBe total (r = -.730, p < .001), as well as all three FrSBe subscales (apathy r = -.751, p < .001; disinhibition r = -.470, p = .020; and executive dysfunction r = -.641, p = .001). This indicated a strong connection between frontal lobe functioning and independent living skills. TAS external was also negatively correlated with CLSA total (r = -.430, p = .036), suggesting that an externally oriented focus was associated with poorer independent living skills.
The CLSA comes with several subscales, representing theoretically distinct aspects of independent living ability. It's important to note that these scores are not completely independent, because some items were scored under multiple subscales. All subscales had average scores significantly lower than 5.00.
The daily living scale, which includes items 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98 and 99, assesses practical everyday self-care, and had an average of 4.10+/-.439, with a range of 3.27-5.00.
The self-care scale, which includes items 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84, assesses mainly response to emergencies and health-related self-care, and had an average of 3.79+/-.549, with a range of 2.69-4.94. Scores on this scale were correlated with general impression of independent living (p = .045), with individuals who could live independently scoring an average of 3.92+/-.602 as opposed to 3.53+/-.378 for the 'no'/'maybe' group.
Specific items that differed across independent living groups on this scale included caring for own injury or illness (item 84, p = .020), making own appointments (item 82, p = .034), having a place to go if they feel unsafe (item 72, p = .022) and knowing how to get benefits (item 76, p = .012). With the exception of knowing how to get benefits, the average score for the independent living group was 4.04-4.56 ('yes' to 'mostly yes') and the non-independent group scored an average of 3.08-3.85 ('somewhat' to 'mostly yes') across the other three items. How to get benefits was rated lower for both groups, with the independent group scoring an average of 3.15+/-1.262 ('somewhat' to 'mostly yes'), and the the non-independent group scoring 2.08+/-1.038 ('mostly no'). This indicates that ironically, the group more likely to need benefits would also have more difficulty getting them without another person's assistance.
The relationships and communication scale, which includes items 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67, assesses self-esteem, social skills and ability to engage in healthy loving relationships, and had an average of 3.76+/-.595, with a range of 2.50-4.94. This scale also significantly differed by independent living status (p = .046), with 23 independent individuals scoring an average of 3.93+/-.571 and 12 non-independent individuals scoring an average of 3.50+/-.619.
No individual items in this subscale had significantly different means across groups, but three had greater variance in the non-independent group: knowing a potential grandparent/aunt/uncle for children or future children (item 58, p = .001), ability to show others that they care (item 52, p = .036) and thinking about how one's choices impact others (item 54, p = .001). Since there was a ceiling effect, this variance is likely due to lower-scoring individuals being more common in the non-independent group, but this fell short of producing a significant difference in mean scores.
The housing and money management scale, which includes items 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51, assesses ability to manage money, pay bills, and maintain a stable housing situation. On this scale, my sample scored an average of 3.52+/-.851, with a range of 1.55-5.00. This scale showed the strongest differences by independent living status (p = .001), with an average of 3.86+/-.802 for the 24 independent individuals as opposed to 2.87+/-.632 for the 12 non-independent individuals.
As expected given how strongly this scale differed, many items were significantly affected by independent living status. The independent group earned higher scores on knowing the advantages and disadvantages of check cashing services and payday loans (item 45, p = .003), keeping records of income and bills (item 36, p = .040), knowing how to get ID and driver's license (item 34, p = .004), knowing how interest works on loans (item 51, p = .031), knowing how to rent an apartment (item 42, p = .029), knowing how to get emergency help paying for utilities (item 41, p = .004), knowing what happens if they break their rental lease (item 40, p = .044), ability to find safe affordable housing (item 44, p = .001), knowing the costs of moving (item 43, p = .035), planning for monthly expenses (item 37, p = .011) and knowing the costs of owning a car (item 33, p = .042).
Independent individuals scored 3.78-4.19 ('somewhat' to 'mostly yes') on most of the items that differed across groups, with the non-independent individuals scoring 1.69-2.92 ('no' to 'mostly no') on those items. Two items had lower scores - keeping records of income and bills and knowing how to get help paying for utilities. Independent individuals scored 3.30+/-1.295 on recording income and bills (compared with 2.31+/-1.548 for the non-independent group) and 2.85+/-1.460 (compared with 1.58+/-.996) on knowing how to get emergency help paying for utilities.
In addition, non-independent individuals showed more variance in knowing someone to live with if they needed (item 39, p = .001), understanding disadvantages of credit cards (item 50, p = .023), knowing what happens if they break a rental lease (p = .001), knowing the importance of a good credit score (item 49, p = .001), using online banking (item 46, p = .007) and knowing costs of moving (p = .017). They showed less variance in knowing how to get emergency help in paying utilities (p = .048). These differences in variance were likely due to ceiling and floor effects, since the items with more variance in the non-independent group had independent group scores close to 5 (and non-independent group scores ranging from 2.62-4.15), and the one item with less variance in the non-independent group had scores close to 1 in that group.
The work and study life scale, which includes items 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, assesses ability to handle a job or education, and had an average of 3.51+/-.839, with a range of 1.33-4.89. This is the scale that included the US-specific items. Although removing those items raised the maximum score to 5.00, it did not significantly change the mean score. Both the standard and non_US versions of this scale correlated significantly with independent living status (p = .037-.049), with the standard version resulting in an average of 3.78+/-.864 for the 20 independent individuals and 3.12+/-.676 for the non-independent individuals.
Three items differed significantly by independent living group. Independent individuals were more likely to know what employee benefits were (item 26, p = .019), be able to get help with an income tax form (item 21, p = .045) and be able to fill out a W4 exemption (item 27, p = .007). The independent group's scores ranged from 3.37-3.78 ('somewhat' to 'mostly yes') while the non-independent group's scores ranged from 2.00-2.69 ('mostly no' to 'somewhat').
Two items showed different variances - knowing what harassment and discrimination are had less variance in the non-independent group (item 25, p = .016) while having someone who cared how they were doing at work had more variance (item 20, p = .012). In both cases, this appeared to be due to ceiling effects - surprisingly, the non-independent group appeared to be more likely to understand harassment and discrimination.
The career and education planning scale, which includes items 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, assesses plans for career and educational advancement, and had an average of 3.12, with a range of 1.50-5.00.
Lastly, the looking forward scale, which includes items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, assesses general feelings of hope for the future, and had a mean of 3.23+/-.687, with a range of 1.71-4.86.
I also performed a factor analysis. The scree plot suggested 4 factors, which were extracted.
The largest factor, factor 1, included items 27 (.874), 35 (.855), 33 (.815), 79 (.802), 30 (.799), 51 (.797), 28 (.792), 83 (.790), 85 (.789), 23 (.788), 45 (.782), 43 (.763), 73 (.753), 34 (.728), 44 (.722), 21 (.708), 42 (.706), 93 (.700), 15 (.700), 57 (.695), 48 (.678), 82 (.669), 91 (.664), 76 (.662), 14 (.643), 81 (.626), 29 (.624), 26 (.621), 17 (.607), 31 (.597), 50 (.592), 8 (.592), 12 (.527), 68 (.526), 97 (.500), 96 (.380), 32 (.368) and 89 (.334). These items focused on a wide range of independent living scales, particularly items which described knowing how to do various independent living tasks. Low scorers on this scale would have difficulty with housing, employment, money management, managing their own health, and various other aspects of self-care.
This factor was positively correlated with age (r = .657, p < .001). A three-way ANOVA between three age categories was significant (p = .005), with a post-hoc analysis finding a significant difference between 17-24 year olds and 36-60 year olds. (p < .001). The 25-35 year old group was intermediate and not significantly different from either age group. None of the CLSA factors differed by sex.
The average score on this factor was 3.53+/-.888, with a range of 1.50-4.98. This factor was significantly correlated with independent living group (r = .477, p = .014), and was the only factor that correlated with that. It was also negatively correlated with Autism Internal Experience factor 1, suggesting that low scorers on this factor tended to be strongly visual thinkers and poor at verbal thinking. Receptive speech problems were also correlated with this scale (r = -.520, p = .005). In addition, factor 1 was strongly correlated with FrSBe total (r = -.422, p = .028) and apathy (r = -.565, p = .001), suggesting that low scorers on this scale tended to have frontal lobe problems, especially a lack of motivation.
Factor 2 included items 78 (.919), 5 (.911), 61 (.876), 58 (.839), 77 (.822), 39 (.794), 60 (.785), 47 (.757), 59 (.730), 38 (.729), 20 (.693), 62 (.634), 90 (.596), 4 (.566), 55 (.552), 66 (.517), 13 (.513), 54 (.451), 94 (.449), 52 (.444), 41 (.400), 36 (.396) and 65 (.353). Most of the items related to social supports, social skills, and prosocial behavior. Low scorers on this scale would be socially isolated, have poor social skills, and be somewhat abrasive individuals.
This factor was also positively correlated with age (r = .384, p < .001), but a three-way ANOVA fell short of significance (p = .054).
The average score on this factor was 3.61+/-.845, with a range of 1.30-4.91. This factor was significantly negatively correlated with AQ attention switching (r = -.353, p = .032), indicating that low scorers on CLSA factor 2 tended to have strong interests and difficulty shifting attention. This factor was also negatively correlated with FrSBe total (r = -.552, p = .001), and all three subscales (apathy r = -.606, p < .001; disinhibition r = -.332, p = .045; and executive dysfunction r = -.434).
Factor 3 included items 2 (.746), 19 (.721), 10 (.690), 53 (.677), 63 (.646), 80 (.633), 18 (.629), 67 (.583), 16 (.573), 9 (.562), 6 (.560), 71 (.506), 87 (.502), 11 (.488), 1 (.488), 22 (.486), 7 (.466), 37 (.400) and 74 (.389). Most of the items here related either to feeling self-confident and coping well or to planning ahead in practical matters. Low scorers on this scale would be insecure, have difficulty asserting themselves and lose their temper easily; they would also lack a clear sense of what future they want, not be actively working to accomplish goals and show a tendency to poor planning in areas of daily life.
The average score on this factor was 3.35+/-.692, with a range of 1.53-4.68. This factor was significantly negatively correlated with AQ attention to detail (r = -.361, p = .039), indicating that low scorers tended to notice and be interested in a lot of subtle details, possibly missing the big picture. One possibility is that this tendency to focus on details may have made them more susceptible to certain cognitive distortions that involve excessively generalizing from a single negative detail, such as overgeneralization, filtering and global labeling. This could explain the link between emotional problems and executive problems in this factor.
This factor was also negatively correlated with Autism Internal Experience factor 2 (r = -.361, p = .030), suggesting that low scorers tended to form vivid mental impressions of sensory experiences. Like other CLSA factors, this factor was also negatively correlated with FrSBe total score (r = -.617, p < .001), apathy (r = -.642, p < .001), disinhibition (r = -.435, p = .009), and executive dysfunction (r = -.431, p = .011). In addition, this factor was negatively correlated with TAS total (r = -.488, p = .003), difficulty describing emotions (r = -.510, p = .002), and difficulty identifying emotions (r = -.587, p < .001).
The average score on this factor was 4.14+/-.458, with a range of 3.00-4.93. This factor was significantly negatively correlated with AQ communication (r = -.339, p = .037), indicating that low scorers on this factor tend to have difficulty with pragmatic speech and tone of voice. It also correlated negatively with Autism Internal Experience factor 1 (r = -.432, p = .005) and factor 2 (r = -.341, p = .031), suggesting that low scorers tended to be very visual, have difficulty with verbal thought, and form vivid sensory impressions.
This factor was also negatively correlated with FrSBe disinhibition (r = -.344, p = .032) and executive dysfunction r = -.339, p = .037). In addition, the 4 non-white subjects scored significantly poorer than the white subjects (p = .034).
One item, item 3, did not load significantly on any factor. This item reflected feeling 'ready' for the next phase in life. Perhaps with the wide age range in my sample, this item was less meaningful - a 17 year old is facing a very different 'next phase in life' than a 60 year old is.
In general, many subjects seemed to struggle with aspects of independent living. Although I don't have normative data, even many subjects who were living independently responded 'somewhat' to 'no' on some important items.
Particularly concerning were the responses to a number of items reflecting abuse risk. Only 58.2% felt reasonably confident that they knew the signs of an abusive relationship, 37.3% felt they could speak up for themselves, 65.1% could turn down a sexual advance, 71.5% had somewhere they could go if they felt unsafe and 52.4% felt that they could get themselves away from a dangerous situation. This suggests that between 28-63% lacked the skills necessary to protect themselves from abuse or violence, including sexual violence.
Worst, 22% suggested that their relationships included hitting, slapping, shoving, being made fun of or name calling, which indicates that they may be currently receiving verbal or physical abuse (or else perpetrating it). In addition, 34.9% dealt with anger by hurting others and/or damaging objects. These abuse risk items were mostly not correlated with independent living status (with the exception of having a place to go if they felt unsafe).
Research has consistently found a higher risk of abuse victimization among children with disabilities, and among autistic children and adults. Unfortunately, disabled people can often be 'easy targets', making it particularly important that disabled individuals are given strategies to prevent abuse. Unfortunately, treatment practices such as hand-over-hand, compliance training and forced eye contact seem likely to increase abuse risk, since they undermine an autistic child's ability to say no and normalize situations that would generally be seen as overly intrusive control.
With regards to general independent living, this research suggests that the strongest predictor of independent living is frontal lobe problems - a link found in other populations as well, such as elderly, patients with frontal lobe injuries, and individuals with schizophrenia. Autistic traits, visual thinking, receptive speech impairment, alexithymia and difficulty with eye contact all had links with independent living as well. However, since this was a correlational study, causal links can't be determined.
In the course of this study, I found that independent living status was predicted by both overall CLSA score and the scores of many specific items. The CLSA may be a useful assessment of an autistic person's ability to live independently. It may also be a good guide for treatment goals - focusing on building skills in the specific areas that differ between autistic people who can and can't live independently might be effective in improving an autistic person's independence.
It's also important to note that in many ways, older participants had better independent living skills than younger participants. This may be a sign that independent living skills improve throughout adulthood (anecdotally, this is certainly true of me - although I still can't live independently at 26, my independent living skills have increased a great deal since I was 17).
However, this is a cross-sectional comparison, not a longitudinal one, and cohort differences could account for this effect. In particular, during the 60s and 70s, when my oldest participants were emerging adults, the costs of housing and education were much lower and entry-level employment was more readily available than it is now. This makes the challenges of becoming independent much greater even for NT young adults.
In addition, my study's selection factors may affect different generations differently. My study was an online survey posted on an online support group, which automatically selects for a minimum level of comfort and competence with computers. Likely many of my younger participants, like me and my 18 year old brother, were first exposed to computers in early childhood, which was impossible for my older participants. It may be that older autistic individuals with independent living impairments are less likely to achieve sufficient computer competence in adulthood than a similarly affected individual with childhood computer exposure.
In general, this study confirmed the well-documented difficulties in independent living among autistic adults - even individuals who show adequate language and intelligence. Unfortunately, many services aimed at assisting autistic adults with independent living require a diagnosis of cognitive disability as well, which leaves a substantial group of autistic individuals falling through the cracks. In addition, the very disability that renders these individuals in need of support also makes them less likely to be able to access whatever support is available, or even know which supports they are eligible for.
| Items | No | Mostly No | Somewhat | Mostly Yes | Yes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6
14.0%
|
13
30.2%
|
16
37.2%
|
5
11.6%
|
3
7.0%
|
Total: 43
|
5
11.6%
|
12
27.9%
|
16
37.2%
|
6
14.0%
|
4
9.3%
|
Total: 43
|
6
14.0%
|
8
18.6%
|
18
41.9%
|
4
9.3%
|
7
16.3%
|
Total: 43
|
3
7.1%
|
9
21.4%
|
15
35.7%
|
4
9.5%
|
11
26.2%
|
Total: 42
|
5
11.6%
|
1
2.3%
|
6
14.0%
|
10
23.3%
|
21
48.8%
|
Total: 43
|
6
14.3%
|
12
28.6%
|
9
21.4%
|
8
19.0%
|
7
16.7%
|
Total: 42
|
1
2.3%
|
2
4.7%
|
15
34.9%
|
11
25.6%
|
14
32.6%
|
Total: 43
|
10
23.3%
|
11
25.6%
|
10
23.3%
|
5
11.6%
|
7
16.3%
|
Total: 43
|
7
17.1%
|
5
12.2%
|
4
9.8%
|
8
19.5%
|
17
41.5%
|
Total: 41
|
20
47.6%
|
8
19.0%
|
1
2.4%
|
5
11.9%
|
8
19.0%
|
Total: 42
|
2
4.7%
|
4
9.3%
|
11
25.6%
|
12
27.9%
|
14
32.6%
|
Total: 43
|
7
16.7%
|
7
16.7%
|
15
35.7%
|
6
14.3%
|
7
16.7%
|
Total: 42
|
19
45.2%
|
3
7.1%
|
10
23.8%
|
6
14.3%
|
4
9.5%
|
Total: 42
|
2
4.7%
|
4
9.3%
|
12
27.9%
|
19
44.2%
|
6
14.0%
|
Total: 43
|
3
7.1%
|
3
7.1%
|
5
11.9%
|
15
35.7%
|
16
38.1%
|
Total: 42
|
2
4.7%
|
4
9.3%
|
4
9.3%
|
10
23.3%
|
23
53.5%
|
Total: 43
|
9
22.5%
|
5
12.5%
|
9
22.5%
|
6
15.0%
|
11
27.5%
|
Total: 40
|
3
7.0%
|
6
14.0%
|
9
20.9%
|
13
30.2%
|
12
27.9%
|
Total: 43
|
3
7.0%
|
10
23.3%
|
7
16.3%
|
17
39.5%
|
6
14.0%
|
Total: 43
|
5
11.6%
|
2
4.7%
|
3
7.0%
|
12
27.9%
|
21
48.8%
|
Total: 43
|
8
18.6%
|
12
27.9%
|
4
9.3%
|
9
20.9%
|
10
23.3%
|
Total: 43
|
11
27.5%
|
3
7.5%
|
14
35.0%
|
8
20.0%
|
4
10.0%
|
Total: 40
|
2
4.7%
|
4
9.3%
|
11
25.6%
|
12
27.9%
|
14
32.6%
|
Total: 43
|
3
7.0%
|
6
14.0%
|
15
34.9%
|
9
20.9%
|
10
23.3%
|
Total: 43
|
0
0.0%
|
2
4.7%
|
1
2.3%
|
8
18.6%
|
32
74.4%
|
Total: 43
|
7
16.3%
|
4
9.3%
|
11
25.6%
|
8
18.6%
|
13
30.2%
|
Total: 43
|
10
27.0%
|
5
13.5%
|
6
16.2%
|
4
10.8%
|
12
32.4%
|
Total: 37
|
6
14.0%
|
5
11.6%
|
10
23.3%
|
7
16.3%
|
15
34.9%
|
Total: 43
|
5
11.6%
|
6
14.0%
|
10
23.3%
|
15
34.9%
|
7
16.3%
|
Total: 43
|
4
9.5%
|
2
4.8%
|
6
14.3%
|
16
38.1%
|
14
33.3%
|
Total: 42
|
6
14.0%
|
6
14.0%
|
16
37.2%
|
8
18.6%
|
7
16.3%
|
Total: 43
|
2
4.7%
|
4
9.3%
|
6
14.0%
|
15
34.9%
|
16
37.2%
|
Total: 43
|
9
20.9%
|
6
14.0%
|
7
16.3%
|
6
14.0%
|
15
34.9%
|
Total: 43
|
3
7.0%
|
5
11.6%
|
10
23.3%
|
9
20.9%
|
16
37.2%
|
Total: 43
|
3
7.0%
|
5
11.6%
|
8
18.6%
|
10
23.3%
|
17
39.5%
|
Total: 43
|
7
16.3%
|
11
25.6%
|
11
25.6%
|
3
7.0%
|
11
25.6%
|
Total: 43
|
5
11.9%
|
7
16.7%
|
6
14.3%
|
10
23.8%
|
14
33.3%
|
Total: 42
|
4
9.3%
|
7
16.3%
|
6
14.0%
|
8
18.6%
|
18
41.9%
|
Total: 43
|
6
14.0%
|
5
11.6%
|
1
2.3%
|
7
16.3%
|
24
55.8%
|
Total: 43
|
4
9.3%
|
6
14.0%
|
6
14.0%
|
7
16.3%
|
20
46.5%
|
Total: 43
|
15
35.7%
|
12
28.6%
|
5
11.9%
|
4
9.5%
|
6
14.3%
|
Total: 42
|
6
14.0%
|
6
14.0%
|
6
14.0%
|
10
23.3%
|
15
34.9%
|
Total: 43
|
7
16.3%
|
3
7.0%
|
9
20.9%
|
10
23.3%
|
14
32.6%
|
Total: 43
|
10
23.3%
|
5
11.6%
|
9
20.9%
|
10
23.3%
|
9
20.9%
|
Total: 43
|
9
20.9%
|
5
11.6%
|
2
4.7%
|
9
20.9%
|
18
41.9%
|
Total: 43
|
11
26.2%
|
2
4.8%
|
4
9.5%
|
6
14.3%
|
19
45.2%
|
Total: 42
|
4
9.3%
|
3
7.0%
|
7
16.3%
|
8
18.6%
|
21
48.8%
|
Total: 43
|
5
11.9%
|
3
7.1%
|
7
16.7%
|
11
26.2%
|
16
38.1%
|
Total: 42
|
5
11.6%
|
2
4.7%
|
9
20.9%
|
7
16.3%
|
20
46.5%
|
Total: 43
|
1
2.3%
|
0
0.0%
|
4
9.3%
|
10
23.3%
|
28
65.1%
|
Total: 43
|
8
18.6%
|
4
9.3%
|
7
16.3%
|
5
11.6%
|
19
44.2%
|
Total: 43
|
5
11.6%
|
4
9.3%
|
11
25.6%
|
18
41.9%
|
5
11.6%
|
Total: 43
|
3
7.0%
|
0
0.0%
|
12
27.9%
|
14
32.6%
|
14
32.6%
|
Total: 43
|
3
7.0%
|
6
14.0%
|
10
23.3%
|
15
34.9%
|
9
20.9%
|
Total: 43
|
0
0.0%
|
6
14.0%
|
12
27.9%
|
13
30.2%
|
12
27.9%
|
Total: 43
|
1
2.3%
|
3
7.0%
|
14
32.6%
|
14
32.6%
|
11
25.6%
|
Total: 43
|
2
4.9%
|
1
2.4%
|
6
14.6%
|
16
39.0%
|
16
39.0%
|
Total: 41
|
7
16.7%
|
1
2.4%
|
2
4.8%
|
5
11.9%
|
27
64.3%
|
Total: 42
|
5
11.6%
|
5
11.6%
|
7
16.3%
|
7
16.3%
|
19
44.2%
|
Total: 43
|
2
4.8%
|
1
2.4%
|
0
0.0%
|
12
28.6%
|
27
64.3%
|
Total: 42
|
4
9.3%
|
6
14.0%
|
5
11.6%
|
5
11.6%
|
23
53.5%
|
Total: 43
|
6
14.0%
|
11
25.6%
|
8
18.6%
|
5
11.6%
|
13
30.2%
|
Total: 43
|
1
2.3%
|
2
4.7%
|
8
18.6%
|
11
25.6%
|
21
48.8%
|
Total: 43
|
1
2.4%
|
0
0.0%
|
3
7.1%
|
14
33.3%
|
24
57.1%
|
Total: 42
|
1
2.3%
|
0
0.0%
|
7
16.3%
|
19
44.2%
|
16
37.2%
|
Total: 43
|
4
9.3%
|
7
16.3%
|
17
39.5%
|
13
30.2%
|
2
4.7%
|
Total: 43
|
7
16.3%
|
7
16.3%
|
13
30.2%
|
10
23.3%
|
6
14.0%
|
Total: 43
|
5
11.6%
|
4
9.3%
|
5
11.6%
|
10
23.3%
|
19
44.2%
|
Total: 43
|
0
0.0%
|
0
0.0%
|
0
0.0%
|
4
9.3%
|
39
90.7%
|
Total: 43
|
0
0.0%
|
0
0.0%
|
3
7.0%
|
7
16.3%
|
33
76.7%
|
Total: 43
|
1
2.3%
|
4
9.3%
|
10
23.3%
|
7
16.3%
|
21
48.8%
|
Total: 43
|
2
4.8%
|
3
7.1%
|
7
16.7%
|
12
28.6%
|
18
42.9%
|
Total: 42
|
2
4.8%
|
4
9.5%
|
14
33.3%
|
12
28.6%
|
10
23.8%
|
Total: 42
|
2
4.7%
|
12
27.9%
|
4
9.3%
|
3
7.0%
|
22
51.2%
|
Total: 43
|
4
9.3%
|
12
27.9%
|
6
14.0%
|
14
32.6%
|
7
16.3%
|
Total: 43
|
7
16.3%
|
11
25.6%
|
14
32.6%
|
5
11.6%
|
6
14.0%
|
Total: 43
|
6
14.0%
|
5
11.6%
|
6
14.0%
|
3
7.0%
|
23
53.5%
|
Total: 43
|
4
9.3%
|
2
4.7%
|
1
2.3%
|
8
18.6%
|
28
65.1%
|
Total: 43
|
11
26.2%
|
8
19.0%
|
10
23.8%
|
2
4.8%
|
11
26.2%
|
Total: 42
|
6
14.0%
|
6
14.0%
|
16
37.2%
|
9
20.9%
|
6
14.0%
|
Total: 43
|
5
11.6%
|
6
14.0%
|
13
30.2%
|
8
18.6%
|
11
25.6%
|
Total: 43
|
4
9.3%
|
5
11.6%
|
5
11.6%
|
13
30.2%
|
16
37.2%
|
Total: 43
|
6
14.0%
|
4
9.3%
|
11
25.6%
|
13
30.2%
|
9
20.9%
|
Total: 43
|
1
2.3%
|
1
2.3%
|
4
9.3%
|
16
37.2%
|
21
48.8%
|
Total: 43
|
5
11.9%
|
5
11.9%
|
10
23.8%
|
8
19.0%
|
14
33.3%
|
Total: 42
|
2
4.8%
|
2
4.8%
|
5
11.9%
|
11
26.2%
|
22
52.4%
|
Total: 42
|
5
11.6%
|
5
11.6%
|
18
41.9%
|
11
25.6%
|
4
9.3%
|
Total: 43
|
1
2.3%
|
0
0.0%
|
4
9.3%
|
7
16.3%
|
31
72.1%
|
Total: 43
|
0
0.0%
|
0
0.0%
|
4
9.3%
|
8
18.6%
|
31
72.1%
|
Total: 43
|
2
4.7%
|
8
18.6%
|
12
27.9%
|
13
30.2%
|
8
18.6%
|
Total: 43
|
5
11.6%
|
1
2.3%
|
10
23.3%
|
9
20.9%
|
18
41.9%
|
Total: 43
|
5
11.9%
|
9
21.4%
|
12
28.6%
|
4
9.5%
|
12
28.6%
|
Total: 42
|
3
7.0%
|
8
18.6%
|
7
16.3%
|
8
18.6%
|
17
39.5%
|
Total: 43
|
1
2.3%
|
3
7.0%
|
6
14.0%
|
10
23.3%
|
23
53.5%
|
Total: 43
|
0
0.0%
|
0
0.0%
|
3
7.0%
|
11
25.6%
|
29
67.4%
|
Total: 43
|
0
0.0%
|
0
0.0%
|
4
9.3%
|
6
14.0%
|
33
76.7%
|
Total: 43
|
0
0.0%
|
1
2.3%
|
1
2.3%
|
5
11.6%
|
36
83.7%
|
Total: 43
|
0
0.0%
|
0
0.0%
|
2
4.7%
|
9
20.9%
|
32
74.4%
|
Total: 43
|
1
2.3%
|
0
0.0%
|
1
2.3%
|
7
16.3%
|
34
79.1%
|
Total: 43
|
posted by Ettina at 3:52 PM
2 Comments:
Hello Ettina:
The frontal lobe factor suggests something more like physical or sensory disability [and especially chronic illness] than trying to fit in the intellectual disability/mental health stools which affect different cohorts differently. [as you mentioned in computer comfort].
Gavin Bollard is doing a series for people in their 20s.
The Casey choice is a good one.
"The CLSA total was also significantly negatively correlated with Autism Internal Experience factor 1 (r = -.588, p = .003) and factor 2 (r = -.482, p = .017). This suggested that individuals with poorer independent living skills tended to be highly visual thinkers with poor verbal thinking and form vivid mental impressions of sensory experiences."
Yes. Like the young Temple Grandin. She mostly lived in dormitories.
And the abuse questions are worrying. Do we have normative data for that?
Unfortunately, I don't know of any.
Someday I'd like to repeat large chunks of this study on an NT sample, but I haven't found a good online source of NTs. Once I'm a graduate student I'll probably do a study of university students - they're not exactly normative, but they're usually close enough!
Post a Comment
<< Home