ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2024
The Chinese 10-Item Empathy Quotient and Systemising Quotient-Revised: Internal Consistency, Test-Retest Reliability, Known-Groups Validity, and Sex Differences in Autistic and Non-Autistic Adults.
Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe 10-item version of the Empathy Quotient (EQ-10) and the Systemising Quotient-Revised (SQ-R-10) were originally developed in the English-speaking population. However, little is known about the reliability of these measures. There is also extremely limited research translating or evaluating any translated version of these 10-item measures. The present study translated the measures into Chinese and evaluated the Chinese 10-item EQ (C-EQ-10) and SQ-R (C-SQ-R-10).
methodsAn online survey consisting of the C-EQ-10 and the C-SQ-R-10 was completed by 698 non-autistic adults and 43 autistic adults in Hong Kong.
resultsInternal consistency of the measures was satisfactory in the autistic group (α = 0.60-0.63) and good in the non-autistic group (α = 0.76-0.82). Test-retest reliability was high in both the autistic group (r = .76-0.81) and the non-autistic group (r = .80-0.84). On average, the autistic group had significantly lower empathising than did the non-autistic group (Cohen's d = -1.21), and there was a trend of higher systemising in the autistic group than in the non-autistic group (Cohen's d = 0.20). On average, within the non-autistic group, males had significantly lower empathising (Cohen's d = -0.57) and significantly higher systemising (Cohen's d = 0.33) than did females. These average sex differences were attenuated and non-significant in the autistic group. Distribution patterns of "brain types" based on empathising-systemising difference scores seem to suggest that "brain types" are shifted towards systemising types in autistic or male participants.
conclusionThe C-EQ-10 and the C-SQ-R-10 are valid and reliable measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39441478What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.