Explore the vast range of titles available.

There currently exist no self-report measures of social camouflaging behaviours (strategies used to compensate for or mask autistic characteristics during social interactions). The Camouflaging Autistic Traits Questionnaire (CAT-Q) was developed from autistic adults’ experiences of camouflaging, and was administered online to 354 autistic and 478 non-autistic adults. Exploratory factor analysis suggested three factors, comprising of 25 items in total. Good model fit was demonstrated through confirmatory factor analysis, with measurement invariance analyses demonstrating equivalent factor structures across gender and diagnostic group. Internal consistency (α = 0.94) and preliminary test–retest reliability (r = 0.77) were acceptable. Convergent validity was demonstrated through comparison with measures of autistic traits, wellbeing, anxiety, and depression. The present study provides robust psychometric support for the CAT-Q.

The current study systematically investigated the effects of scoring and categorization methods on the psychometric properties of the Autism-Spectrum Quotient. Four hundred and three college students completed the Autism-Spectrum Quotient at least once. Total scores on the Autism-Spectrum Quotient had acceptable internal consistency and test–retest reliability using a binary or Likert scoring method, but the results were more varied for the subscales. Overall, Likert scoring yielded higher internal consistency and test–retest reliability than binary scoring. However, agreement in categorization of low and high autistic traits was poor over time (except for a median split on Likert scores). The results support using Likert scoring and administering the Autism-Spectrum Quotient at the same time as the task of interest with neurotypical participants.

Recently, a large number of vocabulary tests have been made available to language teachers, testers, and researchers. Unfortunately, most of them have been launched with inadequate validation evidence. The field of language testing has become increasingly more rigorous in the area of test validation, but developers of vocabulary tests have generally not given validation sufficient attention in the past. This paper argues for more rigorous and systematic procedures for test development, starting from a more precise specification of the test's purpose, intended testees and educational context, the particular aspects of vocabulary knowledge which are being measured, and the way in which the test scores should be interpreted. It also calls for greater assessment literacy among vocabulary test developers, and greater support for the end users of the tests, for instance, with the provision of detailed users' manuals. Overall, the authors present what they feel are the minimum requirements for vocabulary test development and validation. They argue that the field should self-police itself more rigorously to ensure that these requirements are met or exceeded, and made explicit for those using vocabulary tests.

The Ritvo Autism Asperger Diagnostic Scale-Revised (RAADS-R) is a valid and reliable instrument to assist the diagnosis of adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). The 80-question scale was administered to 779 subjects (201 ASD and 578 comparisons). All ASD subjects met inclusion criteria: DSM-IV-TR, ADI/ADOS diagnoses and standardized IQ testing. Mean scores for each of the questions and total mean ASD vs. the comparison groups’ scores were significantly different ( p  < .0001). Concurrent validity with Constantino Social Responsiveness Scale-Adult = 95.59%. Sensitivity = 97%, specificity = 100%, test–retest reliability r  = .987. Cronbach alpha coefficients for the subscales and 4 derived factors were good. We conclude that the RAADS-R is a useful adjunct diagnostic tool for adults with ASD.

Measuring disruptive innovation is a critical and still-developing topic. Although the disruption ( D ) Index has been widely utilized, it ignores the structural differences between i - and j -type nodes and suffers from inconsistencies, biases related to reference lists, and little comparability across different clusters. To address these possible biases, we propose the improved disruptive Index ( ID Index), using a dataset of 114,202 patents from Chinese listed firms to test its validity. The results show that the ID Index (i) provides a more precise measurement of disruptiveness, resolves inconsistencies, reduces biases related to reference lists, and enhances comparability across clusters; (ii) demonstrates better convergent validity, correlating more closely with expert evaluations and more effectively identifying determinants such as knowledge search, recombination, and coordination; (iii) shows better validity in predicting stock market reactions, renewal durations, firms’ short- and long-term performance. Finally, we separate the ID index to independently measure the extent of disrupting and consolidating existing knowledge, and the convergent and predictive validity are demonstrated.

The validity and reliability of the Test of Gross Motor Development-3 (TGMD-3) were measured, taking into consideration the preference for visual learning of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The TGMD-3 was administered to 14 children with ASD (4–10 years) and 21 age-matched typically developing children under two conditions: TGMD-3 traditional protocol, and TGMD-3 visual support protocol. Excellent levels of internal consistency, test–retest, interrater and intrarater reliability were achieved for the TGMD-3 visual support protocol. TGMD-3 raw scores of children with ASD were significantly lower than typically developing peers, however, significantly improved using the TGMD-3 visual support protocol. This demonstrates that the TGMD-3 visual support protocol is a valid and reliable assessment of gross motor performance for children with ASD.

The utility of symptom (SVT) and performance (PVT) validity tests has been independently established in neuropsychological evaluations, yet research on the relationship between these two types of validity indices is limited to circumscribed populations and measures. This study examined the relationship between SVTs on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) and PVTs in a mixed neuropsychiatric setting. This cross-sectional study included data from 181 diagnostically and demographically diverse patients with neuropsychiatric conditions referred for outpatient clinical neuropsychological evaluation at an academic medical center. All patients were administered a uniform neuropsychological battery, including the MMPI-2-RF and five PVTs (i.e., Dot Counting Test; Medical Symptom Validity Test; Reliable Digit Span; Test of Memory Malingering-Trial 1; Word Choice Test). Nonsignificant associations emerged between SVT and PVT performance. Although the Response Bias Scale was most predictive of PVT performance, MMPI-2-RF SVTs generally had low classification accuracy for predicting PVT performance. Neuropsychological test performance was related to MMPI-2-RF SVT status only when overreporting elevations were at extreme scores. The current study further supports that SVTs and PVTs measure unique and dissociable constructs among diverse patients with neuropsychiatric conditions, consistent with literature from other clinical contexts. Therefore, objective evidence of symptom overreporting on MMPI-2-RF SVTs cannot be interpreted as definitively indicating invalid performance on tests of neurocognitive abilities. As such, clinicians should include both SVTs and PVTs as part of a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation as they provide unique information regarding performance and symptom validity.

Purpose: This study attempted to develop and to preliminarily validate the Mandarin Chinese version of the Vocal Fatigue Index (VFI) as a standardized self-assessment questionnaire tool for potential clinical applications. Method: The experimental procedure involved (a) cross-cultural adaptation of the VFI into the Mandarin Chinese version (CVFI), (b) evaluation by an expert panel, (c) back translation, (d) pilot testing, and (e) validation of the questionnaire by three participant groups: 50 with voice disorders, 50 occupational voice users (at-risk group), and 50 with normal voice (control group). Internal consistency, test--retest reliability, content validity, and convergent validity of the CVFI were examined, and discriminatory ability (diagnostic accuracy) for distinguishing between the groups was evaluated. Results: Results showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha [greater than or equal to] 0.8817 for the total CVFI scores for all groups), high test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients [greater than or equal to] 0.9072, p < 0.001 for the total CVFI scores for all groups), high content validity (total content validity index = 0.9368), and high convergent validity (Pearson r [greater than or equal to] 0.8155, p < 0.001 between the total CVFI scores and Factors 1 and 2 scores). Significant differences between the three groups were found in all scores. Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed a high diagnostic accuracy for distinguishing between the disorders group and the normal group (area under the curve [greater than or equal to] 0.927, p < 0.001 for the total CVFI scores and Factors 1 and 2 scores), with cutoff scores of [greater than or equal to] 36 (total CVFI score), [greater than or equal to] 23.5 (Factor 1 score), [greater than or equal to] 7.5 (Factor 2 score), and [greater than or equal to] 6.5 (Factor 3 score). Conclusions: These findings suggested that the CVFI could be a reliable and valid self-assessment tool for the clinical evaluation of vocal fatigue in Mandarin Chinese-speaking populations. A full-scale validation study of the CVFI is recommended to verify these results.

The Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) is a stand-alone symptom validity test. The 75-item, true/false measure samples feigned symptoms across five subscales: Psychosis, Neurologic Impairment, Amnestic Disorders, Low Intelligence, and Affective Disorders. Initial psychometrics reported in the manual were adequate, and since publication, dozens of studies have been published on the SIMS, with practice surveys indicating the measure as one of the most commonly used SVTs. Several SIMS short forms, alternate scales, and translations have been published. The SIMS purports to measure feigned self-reported symptoms. Several studies demonstrate convergent validity for the SIMS, as well as incremental validity when compared to clinical judgment based on interview and record review alone. Cutoff scores were quite variable across studies, but when using common cutoff scores, the SIMS does not reliably distinguish feigned psychopathology from severe manifestations of genuine psychiatric illness. This lack of robust discriminant validity means that evaluators need to consider higher SIMS cutoff scores in certain circumstances, which we describe herein. Van Impelen et al. published a meta-analysis on the SIMS in 2014; an updated diagnostic accuracy table is provided here, including new research since the prior review. We conclude by highlighting strengths, weaknesses, and areas of future exploration with the SIMS.

The Cross-linguistic Lexical Task (CLT; Haman, Łuniewska & Pomiechowska, 2015) is a vocabulary task designed to enable cross-linguistic comparisons both across and within (bilingual) children. In this paper we assessed the validity of the CLT as a measure of language proficiency in bilingual children, by determining the extent to which (i) age-matched, monolingual Spanish-speaking and Dutch-speaking children obtained similar scores, (ii) the CLT correlated with other measures of language proficiency in monolingual and bilingual children, and (iii) whether the factors underlying the CLT's construction, i.e., target words’ estimated Age of Acquisition and Complexity Index, were predictive of children's scores. Our results showed that, while the CLT correlated with other measures and is therefore a valid means of tapping into language proficiency, caution is required when using it to compare children's language proficiency cross-linguistically, as scores for Dutch-speaking and Spanish-speaking monolinguals sometimes differed.