Cited by 113Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersChild Nutrition and Feeding Issues

The Adult Repetitive Behaviours Questionnaire-2 (RBQ-2A): a self-report measure of restricted and repetitive behaviours

Open access
Barrett, Sarah L., Uljarević, Mirko, Baker, Emma K., Richdale, Amanda L., Jones, Catherine R. G., Leekam, Susan R.·2015·Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

Abstract

In two studies we developed and tested a new self-report measure of restricted and repetitive behaviours (RRB) suitable for adults. In Study 1, The Repetitive Behaviours Questionnaire-2 for adults (RBQ-2A) was completed by a sample of 163 neurotypical adults. Principal components analysis revealed two components: Repetitive Motor Behaviours and Insistence on Sameness. In Study 2, the mean RBQ-2A scores of a group of adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD; N = 29) were compared to an adult neurotypical group (N = 37). The ASD sample had significantly higher total and subscale scores. These results indicate that the RBQ-2A has utility as a self-report questionnaire measure of RRBs suitable for adults, with potential clinical application.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10803-015-2514-6

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Autistic people score significantly higher on the RBQ-2A than typically developing individuals, suggesting that it is a valid measure of autism-specific repetitive behaviours.

    “autistic people score significantly higher on the measure than typically developing individuals, suggesting that it is a valid measure of autism-specific repetitive behaviours.”

    From Guided self-help for depression in autistic adults: The ADEPT feasibility RCT (2019) · cites this paper as [65]

    Study Two’s Discussion reports significantly higher RBQ-2A scores in adults with ASD than in IQ-matched neurotypical adults and says this supports its utility for measuring repetitive behaviours in adults with ASD. But the Introduction says these behaviours also occur in neurotypical people and people with other conditions, so the finding does not establish that the behaviours measured are autism-specific. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The RBQ2-A is a 20-item questionnaire used in clinical practice to assess the frequency of repetitive behaviours in autistic adults.

    “The RBQ2-A (Barrett et al. 2015) has been adapted from the Repetitive Behaviours Questionnaire-2, which was designed for parents of young children to use. The RBQ2-A is a 20-item questionnaire used in clinical practice to assess the frequency of repetitive behaviours in autistic adults.”

    From Towards a Treatment for Intolerance of Uncertainty for Autistic Adults: A Single Case Experimental Design Study. (2018) · cites this paper as Barrett et al. 2015

    The Study One Method and Results describe the RBQ-2A as a 20-item adult self-report adaptation of a caregiver questionnaire, with response options that include behavioural frequency. The Abstract reports testing it with autistic adults. However, the General Discussion describes clinical use as a potential application and calls for further research; it does not establish that the questionnaire was already used in clinical practice. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The RBQ-2A has good internal consistency, with Cronbach alphas between 0.73 and 0.83.

    “It has been found to have good internal consistency, with Cronbach alphas of between 0.73 and 0.83”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barrett, S. L., Uljarević, M., Baker, E. K., Richdale, A. L., Jones, C. R. G., & Leekam, S. R.
Affiliations
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • La Trobe University (AU)
Corresponding author
Barrett, Sarah L.
Venue
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
Published
2015-07-09
Volume
45
Issue
11
Pages
3680-3692
ISSN
  • 0162-3257 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3432
OpenAlex
W1921535324
Cited by
113
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5
FWCI
3.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Cardiff University
  • Economic and Social Research Council (1358945, ES/F037821/1)
  • School of Psychology, Cardiff University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
Keywords
restricted and repetitive behaviors, self-report questionnaire, adults, autism spectrum disorder, insistence on sameness, psychometric validation, neurotypical adults
MeSH terms
Autism Spectrum Disorder, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Stereotyped Behavior, Case-Control Studies, Principal Component Analysis, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review