| Title |
Parent-Endorsed Sex Differences in Toddlers with and Without ASD: Utilizing the M-CHAT
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10803-016-2945-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Roald A. Øien, Logan Hart, Synnve Schjølberg, Carla A. Wall, Elizabeth S. Kim, Anders Nordahl-Hansen, Martin R. Eisemann, Katarzyna Chawarska, Fred R. Volkmar, Frederick Shic |
| Abstract |
Sex differences in typical development can provide context for understanding ASD. Baron-Cohen (Trends Cogn Sci 6(6):248-254, 2002) suggested ASD could be considered an extreme expression of normal male, compared to female, phenotypic profiles. In this paper, sex-specific M-CHAT scores from N = 53,728 18-month-old toddlers, including n = 185 (32 females) with ASD, were examined. Results suggest a nuanced view of the "extreme male brain theory of autism". At an item level, almost every male versus female disadvantage in the broader population was consistent with M-CHAT vulnerabilities in ASD. However, controlling for total M-CHAT failures, this male disadvantage was more equivocal and many classically ASD-associated features were found more common in non-ASD. Within ASD, females showed relative strengths in joint attention, but impairments in imitation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Norway | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 121 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 17% |
| Researcher | 17 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 11% |
| Unknown | 35 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 39 | 32% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 40 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 January 2019.
All research outputs
#4,905,452
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
#1,916
of 5,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,379
of 324,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
#34
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,791 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.