SelfEvaluation Skills in Young Adults with HighFunctioning Autism

1
Self-Evaluation Skills in Young Adults with
High-Functioning Autism Asperger's Syndrome ?
Jena Lohrens ? Allison M. Haskill, Ph. D. ?
Augustana College, Rock Island, IL ?
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Annual Convention, Boston, MA November 17, 2007

INTRODUCTION Intervention progress for social
and communicative goals in multiple contexts may
be slow for young adults with autism spectrum
disorder (ASD). One possible reason for this may
be that many individuals with ASD struggle to
self-monitor or self-evaluate their own
performance because of deficits in theory of
mind, or perspective-taking, a necessary skill
for self-evaluation. In clinical interactions,
ones ability to self-evaluate performance may be
necessary for generalization of learned skills to
multiple contexts. Self-evaluation skills in
cognitive, communication, and other types of
tasks have been investigated in children and
young adults with disorders such as multiple
sclerosis (Middleton, Denney, Lynch, 2006) and
attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (Harris,
Friedlander, Saddler, 2005). Results of such
studies have been used to inform intervention
decisions and importantly, they also have
contributed to an improved understanding of the
underlying nature of the disorders. To date, much
of the self-evaluation research for the ASD
population has involved young children and
adolescents (Holman Baer, 1979) and generally
has focused on social interactions with peers an
important, but isolated skill. Such studies
typically have involved single subject case
studies using video technology to assist in
self-evaluation (e.g., Maione Mirenda, 2006).
Comparatively little information is available
about self-evaluation skills in young adults with
ASD performing tasks other than those involving
social interaction.

• The ASD group had a greater mismatch between
  actual and self-rated performance across tasks
  than their NT counterparts. Both ASD and NT
  groups had the highest mean differences in rating
  levels between actual and perceived performance
  on the grammatical judgment task. That is, both
  groups tended to rate their performance higher
  than how they actually performed on this
  particular task.
• The two tasks for which the ASD group had the
  closest match between self-rating and actual
  performance were pictorial analogies and reverse
  digits.

• For 3 of 6 tasks in each session, participants
  viewed a video of themselves completing the task
  prior to rating their own performance. For the
  remaining three tasks, participants rated their
  performance without video feedback. Order of
  tasks and conditions (video versus no video) were
  randomized to minimize potential sequence and
  condition effect confounds. Following each task,
  participants were asked to evaluate their
  performance using this rating scale
• Perfect No errors
• Good 1-2 errors
  
• Fair 3-4 errors
• Poor 5-6 errors
  
• Very poor 7 or more errors

• QUESTION 3 Does use of video feedback impact
  accuracy of self-rating of performance
  performance for young adults with ASD and their
  NT peers?
• Smaller numbers indicate closer agreement between
  actual and self-ratings of performance
  therefore, results in Table 3 reveal that video
  feedback improved both groups self-rating
  accuracy.
• Video feedback appeared to help the ASD group to
  a greater extent than it helped the NT group. The
  difference in discrepancies between actual and
  self-rated performance for video versus no video
  conditions was 0.7 for the ASD group, whereas it
  was only 0.36 for the NT group.
• Table 3. ASD and NT mean discrepancies in rating
  levels between self-ratings and actual
  performance with and without video feedback
  across 6 tasks

• RESULTS
• QUESTION 1 Do young adults with ASD and NT
  peers differ in their self-evaluation skills
  across 6 different tasks?
• This question was answered by comparing
  participants self-ratings with ratings of actual
  performance using the same scale. The rating
  scale had 5 degrees (perfect, good, fair, poor,
  and very poor.) Thus, a difference rating of 0
  would indicate that the participants
  self-rating matched their actual performance. A
  difference score of 2 would indicate that a
  participants self rating was discrepant by two
  levels from their actual performance (e.g., a
  participant may rate their performance as good
  in a case in which her actual performance was
  poor.) Thus, the smaller the difference, the
  closer self-rated and actual performance were.
• Across tasks and conditions, the ASD groups mean
  difference in self rating and actual performance
  was 2.33 levels. The difference for the NT group
  was only 0.79.
• Groups mean actual performance data by task type
  are displayed in Table 1.
• Table 1. ASD and NT Groups Mean Actual
  Performance on 6 Tasks

PURPOSES The primary purpose of this study was
to investigate self-evaluation skills
of adolescents/young adults on the autism
spectrum. An additional purpose was to
investigate whether or not the use of video
feedback impacted participants self-evaluation
skills. Performance profiles were compared
between ASD and neurotypical (NT) groups.
Research questions 1. Do young adults with ASD
and NT peers differ in their self-evaluation
skills across six different tasks? 2. Do
differences between self-ratings and actual
performance vary as a function of task type for
young adults with ASD? Are similar patterns
observed for NT peers? 3. Does use of video
feedback impact accuracy of self-rating of
performance performance for young adults with
ASD and their NT peers?

• DISCUSSION
• Both groups had overall inflated perception of
  their performance compared to their actual
  performance. However, The ASD group had a larger
  discrepancy between actual and self-rated
  performance across all 6 tasks.
• This finding may suggest that young adults with
  ASD may have greater difficulties with
  self-evaluation than NT peers. Such deficits may
  be related to deficits in theory of mind.
• Both groups self-rating accuracy improved with
  the use of video feedback, and the ASD groups
  accuracy was improved to a greater degree than
  the NT groups accuracy. This finding complements
  and extends findings of previous studies,
  primarily focused on the use of video in social
  skills training for individuals with ASD,
  suggesting that video feedback may be beneficial
  to incorporate in a variety of intervention
  tasks/goal areas to facilitate self-monitoring of
  performance.
• Studys flaws Although ASD participants were
  similar in language and nonverbal levels, the
  small number of participants limits the extension
  of findings.
• Future additional research is needed to
  investigate the role of self-rating of
  performance in skill generalization in
  intervention for young adults with ASD.
  Additional research also is needed to investigate
  self-monitoring skills in a broader age range of
  individuals with ASD, using a wider range of
  skill areas/task types.

• METHOD
• Participants
• 12 young adults, ages 150-240 (M 182)
• 6 individuals with ASD 6 age-matched (NT)
  peers
• ASD group
• verbal communicators with at least a 9th grade
  reading level
• 2 participants had Aspergers Syndrome labels and
  the remaining 4 had high functioning autism
  labels, as per school or clinical reports
• able to follow basic verbal directions and
  sustain attentional focus for up to 60 minutes
• documented deficits in social interaction
  received communication intervention within the
  past 5 years
• diagnoses made by a qualified ASD evaluator(s)
  (e.g., psychologists, university assessment
  teams, neurologists)
• NT group
• no history of psychological, neurological,
  cognitive, or learning deficits
• no history of special education

• For the NT group, 32 (23/72) of self and actual
  ratings were perfectly matched (i.e., no
  discrepancy between self-rated and actual rating
  levels, or 0) across tasks and conditions
  (video/no video). For the ASD group, self and
  actual performance ratings matched in only 14
  (10/72) of cases.
• Rarely did participants in the ASD group perceive
  their performance to be lower than it actually
  was.
• The NT group was twice as likely as ASD peers to
  rate their performance lower than their actual
  performance level (6 for ASD versus 13 for NT).

QUESTION 2 Do differences between self-ratings
and actual performance vary as a function of task
type for young adults with ASD? Are similar
patterns observed for NT peers? Table 2. Mean
difference in rating level discrepancies between
self-ratings and actual performance by task type
REFERENCES Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1999).
Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language.
Circle Pines, MN American Guidance Services,
Inc. Hammill, D.D., Pearson, N.A.,
Wiederholt, J.L. (1997). Comprehensive Test of
Nonverbal Intelligence. Austin, TX Pro-ED.
Harris, K.R., Friedlander, B.D., Saddler, B.,
Frizzelle, R., Graham, S. (2005).
Self-monitoring of attention versus
self-monitoring of academic performance Effects
among students with ADHD in the general education
classroom. Journal of Special Education, 39,
145-156. Holman, J., Baer, D.M. (1979).
Facilitating generalization of on-task behavior
through self-monitoring of academic tasks.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 9,
429-446. Maione, L., Mirenda, P. (2006).
Effects of video modeling and video feedback on
peer-directed social language skills of a child
with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 9, 106-118. Middleton, L.S.,
Denney, D.R., Lynch, S.G., Parmenter, B.
(2006). The relationship between perceived and
objective cognitive functioning in multiple
sclerosis. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,
21, 487-494. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was
supported by a 2007 Augustana College Faculty
Research Grant

• Procedures
• On 2 separate testing days, participants
  completed a series of 6 different 10-item tasks
  in the categories listed below. The 6 tasks
  involved skills that were both expected and not
  expected to be particularly challenging for
  individuals with ASD. Social-communicative tasks
  such as inferencing and pragmatic judgment were
  expected to be more difficult for individuals
  with ASD. Reverse digits and pictoral analogies
  tasks were anticipated to be comparatively less
  challenging for individuals in the ASD group.
  Stimuli for tasks were adapted from several
  commercially available assessment tools (e.g.,
  CASL and CTONI see References).
• Pragmatic judgment Antonyms Inferencing
• Reverse digits Pictoral analogies Grammatical
  judgment

Note. Performance data for video and no video
conditions were combined for this analysis.