Assessment of self-report response bias in high functioning autistic people

Abstract

The study aimed to establish a normative data set for the Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS) and Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomology (SIMS) in a community adult sample of high functioning autistic (HFA) people. Assessments were administered anonymously online. Seventy surveys were completed, with respondents contributing from 16 countries. The majority of subscales and total scores for the PDS and SIMS fell above cut-off for self-report response bias, suggesting that completion of these measures by HFA individuals may lead to conclusions of intentional response distortion, even when this is not the case. Significant relationships were found between high scores and education level, as well as psychological distress. The findings of the study raise concerns about the use of these measures with HFA people, particularly in ‘high stakes’ situations.

Keywords:

• high functioning autism
• impression management
• malingering
• response bias
• socially desirable responding

Acknowledgements

The study formed part of a doctoral dissertation at the University of Birmingham. Marilyn Sher would like to acknowledge the guidance and support of her doctoral supervisor, Caroline Oliver. We would also like to thank all the wonderful participants who took part in this study, despite the challenging conditions we all faced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Availability of data and material

Anonymised data are available in SPSS.

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Marilyn A. Sher has declared no conflicts of interest

Caroline Oliver has declared no conflicts of interest

The authors did not receive any financial support from any organisation for the submitted work. The first author was a student at the University of Birmingham, and the study was undertaken as part of a practitioner doctorate. The second author works for the University of Birmingham and is the course director. The second author supervised the study as part of the doctorate.

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organisation or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee, the University of Birmingham Research Ethics Committee on 25 February 2020, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent to participate and for publication

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Respondents with a diagnosis of high functioning autism were approached via social media platforms and autism support groups and were asked to express an interest in taking part. The advert directed them to email the principal researcher, at which point they were given a link and password to enter the online survey. This was a requirement of the test publishers as the SIMS and PDS are restricted tests. Once respondents arrived at the website, they were asked some preliminary questions to confirm they were over 18 and had a diagnosis of HFA. Once confirmed, they were directed to the next page where they were provided with an information sheet giving details of the study and asking for consent to participate. Once consented, the survey opened. As soon as respondents completed the questionnaires, they were asked to create a unique identifying code. They could use this code, rather than any personally identifiable information, to withdraw their data from the study, should they subsequently wish to do so. Respondents were given the option to withdraw from the research, but opportunity to withdraw was limited to a specific date, at which point their data were merged with all the other respondents’ data, and so it was not possible to remove their specific responses.