Evaluating screening for autism spectrum disorder using cluster randomization.

We evaluated the rate of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in a group invited to a screening program compared to the rates in two groups who received usual care. The population eligible for screening was all children in Iceland registered for their 30-month well-child visits at primary healthcare centers (PHCs) from March 1, 2016, to October 31, 2017 (N = 7173). The PHCs in the capital area of Reykjavik were the units of cluster randomization. Nine PHCs were selected for intervention (invited group), while eight PHCs received usual care (control group 1). PHCs outside the capital area were without randomization (control group 2). An interdisciplinary team, including a pediatrician contributing with physical and neurological examination, a psychologist evaluating autism symptoms using a diagnostic instrument, and a social worker interviewing the parents, reached a consensus on the clinical diagnosis of ASD according to the ICD-10 diagnostic system. Children in the population were followed up for at least two years and 119 cases were identified. The overall cumulative incidence of ASD was 1.66 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.37, 1.99). In the invited group the incidence rate was 2.13 (95% CI: 1.60, 2.78); in control group 1, the rate was 1.83 (95% CI: 1.31, 2.50); and in control group 2, the rate was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.66, 1.50). Although the rate of ASD was higher in the invited group than in the control groups, the wide confidence intervals prevented us from concluding definitively that the screening detected ASD more readily than usual care.

Questions on honest responding.

This article presents a new method for reducing socially desirable responding in Internet self-reports of desirable and undesirable behavior. The method is based on moving the request for honest responding, often included in the introduction to surveys, to the questioning phase of the survey. Over a quarter of Internet survey participants do not read survey instructions, and therefore, instead of asking respondents to answer honestly, they were asked whether they responded honestly. Posing the honesty message in the form of questions on honest responding draws attention to the message, increases the processing of it, and puts subsequent questions in context with the questions on honest responding. In three studies (nStudy I = 475, nStudy II = 1,015, nStudy III = 899), we tested whether presenting the questions on honest responding before questions on desirable and undesirable behavior could increase the honesty of responses, under the assumption that less attribution of desirable behavior and/or admitting to more undesirable behavior could be taken to indicate more honest responses. In all studies the participants who were presented with the questions on honest responding before questions on the target behavior produced, on average, significantly less socially desirable responses, though the effect sizes were small in all cases (Cohen's d ranging between 0.02 and 0.28 for single items, and from 0.17 to 0.34 for sum scores). The overall findings and the possible mechanisms behind the influence of the questions concerning honest responding on subsequent questions are discussed, and suggestions are made for future research.

Problems with visual statistical learning in developmental dyslexia.

Previous research shows that dyslexic readers are impaired in their recognition of faces and other complex objects, and show hypoactivation in ventral visual stream regions that support word and object recognition. Responses of these brain regions are shaped by visual statistical learning. If such learning is compromised, people should be less sensitive to statistically likely feature combinations in words and other objects, and impaired visual word and object recognition should be expected. We therefore tested whether people with dyslexia showed diminished capability for visual statistical learning. Matched dyslexic and typical readers participated in tests of visual statistical learning of pairs of novel shapes that frequently appeared together. Dyslexic readers on average recognized fewer pairs than typical readers, indicating some problems with visual statistical learning. These group differences were not accounted for by differences in intelligence, ability to remember individual shapes, or spatial attention paid to the stimuli, but other attentional problems could play a mediating role. Deficiencies in visual statistical learning may in some cases prevent appropriate experience-driven shaping of neuronal responses in the ventral visual stream, hampering visual word and object recognition.