ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2026
Factor Structure and Longitudinal Measurement Invariance of the Psychopathology in Autism Checklist.
Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe Psychopathology in Autism Checklist (PAC) was developed to screen for mental health disorders in autistic adults with intellectual disabilities, focusing on identifying common mental health symptoms that do not overlap with autism characteristics. The current study aims to examine the factor structure and longitudinal measurement invariance of the PAC.
methodsExisting data from a longitudinal multicentre study of mental health treatment in autistic individuals with intellectual disabilities were used. The PAC factor structure was examined using intake data (n = 201, 60 females, aged 13-68) and the longitudinal measurement invariance was explored using data across the study's three time points (intake, end of treatment, follow-up; n = 173, 56 females, aged 13-68).
resultsThe four disorder-specific subscales of the PAC (psychosis, depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder [OCD]) showed an acceptable but suboptimal fit, while the inclusion of the general adjustment problems (GAP) subscale resulted in a poorer fit. Three of the subscales (GAP, OCD, depression) showed longitudinal measurement invariance, while two did not (psychosis, anxiety), suggesting caution when using the latter subscales for evaluative purposes. An alternative model was identified, comprising 35 of the original 42 PAC items. It showed an improved fit and longitudinal measurement invariance for all five subscales across the three time points.
conclusionThese findings provide a starting point for further development of the PAC. While the alternative model appears to improve structural validity and seems better suited for comparisons over time, further research is needed to determine whether it could also be useful for screening purposes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42171964What 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.