Advertisement

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

, Volume 46, Issue 9, pp 2905–2915 | Cite as

Exploratory Factor Analysis of SRS-2 Teacher Ratings for Youth with ASD

  • Andrew T. Nelson
  • Christopher Lopata
  • Martin A. Volker
  • Marcus L. Thomeer
  • Jennifer A. Toomey
  • Elissa Dua
Original Paper

Abstract

This study examined the factor structure and internal consistency of special education teaching staff ratings on the Social Responsiveness Scale-2 (SRS-2; Constantino and Gruber 2012), as well as the percentage of ratings falling above pre-established cut scores, for a sample of lower-functioning youth with autism spectrum disorder (ASD; n = 264). Results of the exploratory factor analysis yielded a four-factor correlated solution. The individual factors and total score demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency reliability for screening purposes. When applying the lowest pre-established cut score (T ≥ 60; minimum indication of clinically significant symptoms/impairments), 85 % of the sample had ratings in that range or higher (more severe). Implications for assessment and future research are provided.

Keywords

SRS-2 Teacher ratings Exploratory factor analysis ASD 

Notes

Author Contributions

AN conceived of the study, participated in its design and coordination, participated in data analysis and interpretation and drafted the manuscript; CL participated in the study’s design and coordination, drafted the manuscript and provided critical revisions of the article; MV conceived of the study, participated in its design and coordination, participated in data collection, participated in data analysis and interpretation and provided critical revisions of the article; MT coordinated data collection and participated in its design and coordination; JT coordinated data collection; ED participated in data analysis and interpretation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declares that they have no Conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Achenbach, T. M. (2011). Commentary: Definitely more than measurement error: But how should we understand and deal with informant discrepancies? Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40(1), 80–86. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2011.533416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldridge, F. J., Gibbs, V. M., Schmidhofer, K., & Williams, M. (2012). Investigating the clinical usefulness of the Social Responsiveness Scales (SRS) in a tertiary level, autism spectrum disorder specific assessment clinic. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 294–300. doi: 10.1007/s10803-011-1242-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.), text revision. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  4. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  5. Basto, M., & Pereira, J. M. (2012). An SPSS R-menu for ordinal factor analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 46, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bayley, N. (2006). Bayley scales of infant and toddler development (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.Google Scholar
  7. Bolte, S., Poustka, F., & Constantino, J. N. (2008). Assessing autistic traits: Cross-cultural validation of the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS). Autism Research, 1, 354–363. doi: 10.1002/aur.49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2014). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years—Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 states, United States, 2010. MMWR, 63 (SS-2), 1–21.Google Scholar
  9. Charman, T., Baird, G., Simonoff, E., Loucas, T., Chandler, S., Meldrum, D., & Pickles, A. (2007). Efficacy of three screening instruments in the identification of autistic-spectrum disorders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 191, 554–559. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.107.040196.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Constantino, J. N., Davis, S. A., Todd, R. D., Schindler, M. K., Gross, M. M., Brophy, S. L., et al. (2003). Validation of a brief quantitative measure of autistic traits: Comparison of the Social Responsiveness Scale with the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33(4), 427–433. doi: 10.1023/A:1025014929212.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Constantino, J. N., & Gruber, C. P. (2012). Social responsiveness scale, Second Edition (SRS-2). Torrance, CA: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
  12. Constantino, J. N., Gruber, C. P., Davis, S., Hayes, S., Passanante, N., & Przybeck, T. (2004). The factor structure of autistic traits. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(4), 719–726. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00266.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Constantino, J. N., LaVesser, P. D., Zhang, Y., Abbacchi, A. M., Gray, T., & Todd, R. D. (2007). Rapid quantitative assessment of autistic social impairment by classroom teachers. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46(12), 1668–1676. doi: 10.1097/chi.0b013e318157cb23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Constantino, J. N., Przybeck, T., Friesen, D., & Todd, R. D. (2000). Reciprocal social behavior in children with and without pervasive developmental disorders. Journal Of Developmental And Behavioral Pediatrics: JDBP, 21(1), 2–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Elliott, C. D. (2007). Differential ability scales (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.Google Scholar
  16. Fenton, G., D’Ardia, C., Valente, D., Vecchio, I. D., Fabrizi, A., & Bernabei, P. (2003). Vineland adaptive behavior profiles in children with autism and moderate to severe developmental delay. Autism, 7, 269–287. doi: 10.1177/1362361303007003004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clincial assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7, 286–299. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glorfeld, L. W. (1995). An improvement on Horn’s parallel analysis methodlogy for selecting the correct number of factors to retain. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55,-393. doi: 10.1177/001316449505500302
  19. Guttman, L. (1954). Some necessary conditions for common factor analysis. Psychometrika, 19, 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hammill, D. D., Pearson, N. A., & Weiderholt, J. L. (2009). Comprehensive test of nonverbal intelligence (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  21. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185. doi: 10.1007/BF02289447.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaiser, H. F. (1961). A note on Guttman’s lower bound for the number of common factors. British Journal of Psychology, 14, 1–2. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1961.tb00061.x.Google Scholar
  24. Le Couteur, A., Lord, C., & Rutter, M. (2003). The autism diagnostic interview: Revised (ADI-R). Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
  25. Lord, C., & Corsello, C. (2005). Diagnostic instruments in autistic spectrum disorders. In F. R. Volkmar, R. Paul, A. Klin, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders: Vol. 2. Assessment, interventions, and policy (3rd ed., pp. 730–771). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  26. Lord, C., Rutter, M. L., DiLavore, P. C., & Risi, S. (2012). Autism diagnostic observation schedule – Second edition (WPS ed.). Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
  27. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Norris, M., & Lecavalier, L. (2010). Screening accuracy of level 2 autism spectrum disorder rating scales: A review of selected instruments. Autism, 14(4), 263–284. doi: 10.1177/1362361309348071.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Pedhauzer, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Perry, A., Flanagan, H. E., Geier, J. D., & Freeman, N. L. (2009). Brief report: The Vineland adaptive behavior scales in young children with autism spectrum disorders at different cognitive levels. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 1066–1078. doi: 10.1007/s10803-009-0704-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Roid, G. H. (2003). Stanford-Binet intelligence scales (5th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside.Google Scholar
  32. Schanding, G. T., Nowell, K. P., & Goin-Kochel, R. P. (2012). Utility of the social communication questionnaire-current and social responsiveness scale as teacher-report screening tools for autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 1705–1716. doi: 10.1007/s10803-011-1412-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Wechsler, D. (2002). Wechsler preschool and primary scale of intelligence (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.Google Scholar
  34. Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.Google Scholar
  35. Wigham, S., McConachie, H., Tandos, J., & Le Couteur, A. S. (2012). The reliability and validity of the Social Responsiveness Scale in a UK general child population. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33, 944–950. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.12.017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Ysseldyke, J. E., & Salvia, J. (2004). Assessment in special and inclusive education (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  37. Zumbo, B. D., Gadermann, A. M., & Zeisser, C. (2007). Ordinal versions of coefficients alpha and theta for Likert rating scales. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 6, 21–29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew T. Nelson
    • 1
  • Christopher Lopata
    • 2
  • Martin A. Volker
    • 3
  • Marcus L. Thomeer
    • 2
  • Jennifer A. Toomey
    • 1
  • Elissa Dua
    • 4
  1. 1.The Summit CenterGetzvilleUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Autism ResearchCanisius CollegeBuffaloUSA
  3. 3.Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special EducationMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  4. 4.TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations