CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 118Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchChild Nutrition and Feeding IssuesChild and Animal Learning Development

Behavioural markers for autism in infancy: Scores on the Autism Observational Scale for Infants in a prospective study of at-risk siblings

Open access
Gammer, Isobel, Bedford, Rachael, Elsabbagh, Mayada, Garwood, Holly, Pasco, Greg, Tucker, Leslie, Volein, Agnes, Johnson, Mark H. +1 more·2015·Infant Behavior and Development
DOI 10.1016/j.infbeh.2014.12.017PMC PMC4346204
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We investigated early behavioural markers of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) using the Autism Observational Scale for Infants (AOSI) in a prospective familial high-risk (HR) sample of infant siblings (N=54) and low-risk (LR) controls (N=50). The AOSI was completed at 7 and 14 month infant visits and children were seen again at age 24 and 36 months. Diagnostic outcome of ASD (HR-ASD) versus no ASD (HR-No ASD) was determined for the HR sample at the latter timepoint. The HR group scored higher than the LR group at 7 months and marginally but non-significantly higher than the LR group at 14 months, although these differences did not remain when verbal and nonverbal developmental level were covaried. The HR-ASD outcome group had higher AOSI scores than the LR group at 14 months but not 7 months, even when developmental level was taken into account. The HR-No ASD outcome group had scores intermediate between the HR-ASD and LR groups. At both timepoints a few individual items were higher in the HR-ASD and HR-No ASD outcome groups compared to the LR group and these included both social (e.g. orienting to name) and non-social (e.g. visual tracking) behaviours. AOSI scores at 14 months but not at 7 months were moderately correlated with later scores on the autism diagnostic observation schedule (ADOS) suggesting continuity of autistic-like behavioural atypicality but only from the second and not first year of life. The scores of HR siblings who did not go on to have ASD were intermediate between the HR-ASD outcome and LR groups, consistent with the notion of a broader autism phenotype.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a prospective BASIS sample of 104 infants (54 high-risk [HR], 50 low-risk [LR]), AOSI scores differentiated HR from LR at 7 months but not after controlling for developmental level, while at 14 months AOSI scores differentiated HR-ASD from LR and marginally from HR-No ASD. AOSI scores at 14 months, but not 7 months, were moderately associated with later ADOS scores at 24 and 36 months in the HR group.

Key findings

  • At 7 months, HR infants had higher AOSI total scores than LR infants, F(1, 102) = 4.10, p < .045, d = .39; at 14 months the HR vs LR difference was not significant, F(1, 99) = 3.36, p = .07, d = .36. Covarying Mullen Verbal and Nonverbal T-scores attenuated HR vs LR differences at both ages (7 m: p = .37; 14 m: p = .14).
  • At 14 months, the three-group comparison was significant, F(2, 96) = 4.43, p = .014: HR-ASD scored higher than LR (p = .01, d = .81) and marginally higher than HR-No ASD (p = .07, d = .65). After covarying Mullen scores, the 14-month group difference remained, F(4, 93) = 3.85, p = .03, with HR-ASD > LR (p < .01) and HR-ASD > HR-No ASD (p = .03); HR-No ASD and LR did not differ (p = .53).
  • Individual AOSI items: at 7 months HR and LR did not differ on any item, but at 14 months HR scored higher on orientation to name (U = 931.00, p < .01). Outcome-group item differences occurred at 7 months for visual tracking (χ² = 9.99, p < .01; HR-No ASD > LR, U = 634.50, p < .01) and social referencing (χ² = 10.78, p < .01; HR-ASD > LR, U = 206.50, p < .01), and at 14 months for orientation to name (χ² = 11.50, p < .01; HR-No ASD > LR, U = 596.00, p < .01; HR-ASD > LR, U = 282.50, p < .01), engagement of attention (χ² = 9.75, p < .01; no significant post-hoc tests), and social referencing (χ² = 9.75, p < .01; no significant post-hoc tests).
  • In the HR group, AOSI at 7 months was not associated with ADOS at 24 months (r = .23, p = .10) or 36 months (r = .16, p = .27); AOSI at 14 months was associated with ADOS at 24 months (r = .30, p = .03) and 36 months (r = .38, p = .005).

Methods

  • Prospective British Autism Study of Infant Siblings (BASIS) cohort: 104 children (54 HR, 50 LR) seen at approximately 7 months (mean = 7.35, SD = 1.21), 14 months (mean = 13.79, SD = 1.46), 24 months (mean = 23.9, SD = .95), and 36 months (mean = 37.93, SD = 3.02). HR infants had an older sibling with a community clinical ASD diagnosis; LR controls had no ASD in first-degree relatives.
  • The Autism Observational Scale for Infants (AOSI), a 19-item experimenter-led semi-structured assessment, was administered at 7 and 14 months; total score maximum = 44. Double-coding agreement was excellent at 7 months (n = 92, ICC = .97) and 14 months (n = 85, ICC = .95). At 36 months, 17 HR toddlers met ICD-10 criteria for ASD (HR-ASD) and 36 did not (HR-No ASD); LR controls received no formal clinical diagnosis.
  • AOSI total scores were square-root transformed and compared using ANOVA/Tukey tests; individual items used Mann–Whitney/Kruskal–Wallis tests with p < .01; Pearson correlations examined AOSI–ADOS associations in the HR group; Mullen Verbal and Nonverbal T-scores were covaried in follow-up analyses.

Limitations

  • The paper states findings are preliminary due to modest sample size and require confirmation in larger and other independent samples. It also states assessments were non-blind to risk status at infancy and toddler assessments, although the toddler team was blind to infant AOSI scores.
  • The paper notes item-level findings should be considered exploratory because a strict correction for multiple testing was not undertaken and require replication.
  • The paper reports a recurrence rate of 32.1%, higher than the 18.7% in Ozonoff et al. (2011), and states this likely reflects the modest at-risk sample and may not be generalizable. Evident from the text: LR controls lacked a full developmental history and no ADI-R was administered, so no formal clinical diagnoses were assigned to that group.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.infbeh.2014.12.017

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

10 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

0 of 25 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    At 7 m, the HR group had a higher AOSI score than the LR group (F(1,102)=4.10, p<.045, d=.39).

    “As shown in Table 2, at 7 m the HR group had a higher AOSI score than the LR group F(1, 102) = 4.10, p < .045 (d = .39).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    When Mullen Verbal and Nonverbal T-score at each age point was covaried, the difference between the HR and LR groups was no longer significant at 7 m and 14 m.

    “However, when Mullen Verbal and Nonverbal T-score at each age point was covaried, the difference between the HR and LR groups was no longer significant (7 m: F(3, 99) = .66, p = .37; 14 m: F(3, 96) = 2.24, p = .14).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingcitation

    HR siblings who did not go on to have ASD showed higher levels of atypical behaviour at 7 m (visual tracking) and 14 m (orientation to name) compared to LR controls.

    “Furthermore, in line with the BAP concept (Georgiades et al., 2013; Ozonoff et al., 2014), HR siblings who did not go on to have an ASD also showed higher levels of atypical behaviour at 7 m (visual tracking) and 14 m (orientation to name), compared to LR controls.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Georgiades et al., 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Ozonoff et al., 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingown data

    At 14 m, the three outcome group comparison was significant (F(2,96)=4.43, p=.014).

    “At 14 m, the three outcome group comparison was significant F(2, 96) = 4.43, p = .014.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Post-hoc Tukey tests showed that at 14 m the HR-ASD group scored higher than the LR group (p=.01, d=.81).

    “Post-hoc Tukey tests showed that the HR-ASD group scored higher than the LR group (p = .01; d = .81).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 30
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 9

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    AOSI score at 7 m was not associated with ADOS score at 24 m (r=.23, p=.10) or 36 m (r=.16, p=.27).

    “AOSI score at 7 m was not associated with ADOS score at either 24 m (r = .23, p = .10) or 36 m (r = .16, p = .27).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At 14 m, the HR group had a higher AOSI score than the LR group but the difference was not statistically significant (F(1,99)=3.36, p=.07, d=.36).

    “At 14 m the HR group had a higher AOSI score than the LR group but the difference was not statistically significant F(1, 99) = 3.36, p = .07 (d = .36).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At 7 m, the HR and LR groups did not differ on any individual AOSI items, but at 14 m the HR group scored higher than LR controls on orientation to name (U=931.00, p<.01).

    “In terms of individual items, at 7 m the HR and LR groups did not differ on any items but the HR group scored higher than the LR controls on one item at 14 m (orientation to name; U = 931.00, p < .01).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the HR group, 17 toddlers met ICD-10 criteria for ASD and 36 did not.

    “Seventeen toddlers (11 boys, 6 girls) met ICD-10 (World Health Organisation, 1993) criteria for an ASD (combining ICD-10 childhood autism and pervasive developmental disorder (hereafter, HR-ASD subgroup)). The remaining 36 toddlers (10 boys, 26 girls) did not meet diagnostic criteria for ASD (HR-No ASD).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Social referencing at 7 m and orientation to name at 14 m differentiated HR siblings who went on to have ASD from LR controls.

    “We found that social referencing at 7 m and orientation to name also at 14 m differentiated the HR siblings who went on to have an ASD from LR controls.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    AOSI score at 14 m was significantly associated with ADOS score at 24 m (r=.30, p=.03) and at 36 m (r=.38, p=.005).

    “However, AOSI score at 14 m was significantly associated both with ADOS score at 24 m (r = .30, p = .03) and at 36 m (r = .38, p = .005).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At 7 m, there were significant differences between HR-ASD, HR-No ASD, and LR groups for visual tracking (χ2=9.99, p<.01; HR-No ASD > LR: U=634.50, p<.01) and Social Referencing (χ2=10.78, p<.01; HR-ASD > LR: U=206.50, p<.01).

    “In terms of HR-ASD vs. HR-No ASD outcome groups vs. LR group differences, at 7 m there were significant differences for the following items: visual tracking (χ2 = 9.99, p < .01; HR-No ASD > LR: U = 634.50, p < .01) and Social Referencing (χ2 = 10.78, p < .01; HR-ASD > LR: U = 206.50, p < .01).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Effects of developmental level as measured by the Mullen verbal and nonverbal subscales did not predominate, with only verbal ability at 7 month being significantly associated with the AOSI total score.

    “Although the AOSI combines developmental abilities (e.g. imitation) and the presence of atypical or unusual behaviours (e.g. atypical motor and sensory behaviours) the effects of developmental level as measured by the Mullen verbal and nonverbal subscales did not predominate, with only verbal ability at 7 month being significantly associated with the AOSI total score.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At 7 m but not 14 m, the covariate effect for Mullen Verbal T-score was significant.

    “At 7 m but not 14 m the covariate effect for Mullen Verbal T-score was significant (F(3, 99) = 4.48, p < .05).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In individual AOSI items, there were no HR vs LR group differences at 7 m; HR siblings scored higher than LR controls on one item at 14 m (orientation to name).

    “In terms of individual AOSI items we found no HR vs. LR group differences at 7 m and HR siblings only scored higher than LR controls on one item at 14 m (orientation to name).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At 14 m, there were significant differences between HR-ASD, HR-No ASD, and LR groups for orientation to name (χ2=11.50, p<.01; HR-No ASD > LR: U=596.00, p<.01; HR-ASD > LR: U=282.50, p<.01), Engagement of Attention (χ2=9.75, p<.01; no significant post-hoc tests) and Social Referencing (χ2=9.75, p<.01; no significant post-hoc tests).

    “At 14 m there were significant differences for the following items: orientation to name (χ2 = 11.50, p < .01; HR-No ASD > LR: U = 596.00, p < .01; HR-ASD > LR: U = 282.50, p < .01), Engagement of Attention (χ2 = 9.75, p < .01; no significant post-hoc tests) and Social Referencing (χ2 = 9.75, p < .01; no significant post-hoc tests).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The HR-ASD group had lower ELC scores than the LR group at all four visits and lower ELC scores compared to the HR-No ASD group at the 14 m and 36 m visits but not the 7 m and 24 m visits.

    “The HR-ASD group had lower ELC scores than the LR group at all four visits (all ps < .05) and lower ELC scores compared to the HR-No ASD group at the 14 m and 36 m visits (both p < .05) but not the 7 m and 24 m visits.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The HR-ASD group had a marginally but not significantly higher AOSI score than the HR-No ASD group at 14 m (p=.07, d=.65).

    “The HR-ASD group also had a marginally but not significantly higher AOSI score than the HR-No ASD group (p = .07; d = .65).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At 7 m but not 14 m, the covariate effect for Mullen Verbal T-score was significant in the repeated analyses.

    “At 7 m but not 14 m the covariate effect for Mullen Verbal T-score was significant (F(4, 95) = 4.31, p < .05).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Post-hoc LSD tests showed that at 14 m the HR-ASD group scored higher than both the LR group (p<.01) and the HR-No ASD group (p=.03), and that the HR-No ASD group and LR group did not differ from each other (p=.53).

    “Post-hoc LSD tests showed that at 14 m the HR-ASD group scored higher than both the LR group (p < .01) and the HR-No ASD group (p = .03) and that the HR-No ASD group and LR group did not differ from each other (p = .53).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The recurrence rate in the current study was 32.1%, higher than the 18.7% reported by Ozonoff et al. (2011).

    “It is worth noting that the recurrence rate reported in the current study (32.1%) is higher than that reported in the large consortium paper published by Ozonoff and colleagues (18.7%; Ozonoff et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ozonoff et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    When covarying for Mullen Verbal and Nonverbal T-score, the HR outcome groups and LR group did not differ at 7 m but did differ at 14 m.

    “These analyses were repeated covarying for Mullen Verbal and Nonverbal T-score at each age. The HR outcome groups and LR group did not differ from each other at 7 m of age, F(4, 95) = .61, p = .47 but did differ from each other at 14 m of age, F(4, 93) = 3.85, p = .03.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    AOSI scores at 7 months were not associated with later ADOS scores, but AOSI scores at 14 months were moderately associated with ADOS scores at 24 and 36 months.

    “AOSI scores at 7 months were not associated with later ADOS scores but AOSI scores at 14 months were moderately associated with ADOS scores at 24 and 36 months.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    These item-level findings should be considered exploratory given that a strict correction for multiple testing was not undertaken and require replication in other samples.

    “However, these item-level findings should be considered exploratory given that a strict correction for multiple testing was not undertaken and require replication in other samples.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Of 54 HR infants recruited, 53 were retained to the 36 m visit.

    “Of the 54 HR infants recruited, 53 were retained to the 36 m visit when comprehensive diagnostic assessment was undertaken.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    AOSI inter-rater agreement was excellent at 7 months (ICC = .97) and 14 months (ICC = .95).

    “Agreement between the two coders was excellent at both 7 months (n = 92, intraclass correlation coefficient = .97) and 14 months (n = 85, intraclass correlation coefficient = .95).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    HR siblings and LR controls did not significantly differ in age at any visit, nor did the HR outcome groups or LR controls differ from one another in age at any visit.

    “HR siblings and LR controls did not significantly differ from each other in age at any visit (t-tests, all ps > .34), nor did the HR outcome groups or LR controls differ from one another in age at any visit (all ps > .20; see Table 1 for descriptive statistics on all measures).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    We conservatively adjusted for differences in verbal and non-verbal developmental ability between the groups.

    “In contrast to previous reports (Brian et al., 2008, 2013; Georgiades et al., 2013), we conservatively adjusted for the differences in verbal and non-verbal developmental ability between the groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Brian et al., 2008, 2013

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Georgiades et al., 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Preliminary findings from the AOSI authors' HR sibling cohort suggested that AOSI scores by 12 months but not at 6 months were promising as a predictor of later ASD outcomes based on 24 month ADOS classification.

    “Preliminary findings from the instrument's authors’ HR sibling cohort suggested that AOSI scores by 12 months but not at 6 months were promising as a predictor of later ASD outcomes based on 24 month ADOS classification (Zwaigenbaum et al., 2005).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zwaigenbaum et al., 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    At 14 months (but not 7 months) AOSI behavioural markers discriminated between HR infants who went on to an ASD diagnosis and LR controls and marginally between HR who did and did not go on to an ASD diagnosis.

    “At 14 months (but not 7 months) these behavioural markers also discriminated between those HR infants who went on to an ASD diagnosis and LR controls and marginally between HR who did and did not go on to an ASD diagnosis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    At 12-18 months, clinically relevant behavioural differences span social communication and stereotyped/repetitive behaviour domains, as well as motor and attentional atypicalities, appearing to represent early manifestations of later ASD symptoms.

    “At this age, clinically relevant behavioural differences span both social communication (e.g. gaze following (Bedford et al., 2012); social referencing (Cornew, Dobkins, Akshoomoff, McCleery, & Carver, 2012)) and stereotyped/repetitive behaviour (e.g. repetitive play (Christensen et al., 2010); repetitive movement (Loh et al., 2007) domains, as well as motor (Flanagan et al., 2012) and attentional”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bedford et al., 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Cornew et al., 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Christensen et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    HR versus LR group comparisons were attenuated when verbal and nonverbal developmental level was controlled, but HR-ASD outcome group differences remained significant.

    “The HR versus LR group comparisons were attenuated when verbal and nonverbal developmental level was controlled but the HR-ASD outcome group differences remained significant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Experimental studies have detected atypical neural response to social stimuli such as dynamic eye gaze from as young as 6 months of age.

    “Experimental studies have detected atypical neural response to social stimuli such as dynamic eye gaze from as young as 6 months of age (Elsabbagh et al., 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Elsabbagh et al., 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Behavioural atypicalities as measured by the AOSI differentiated the HR and LR groups in the first year (7 months) and marginally early in the second year (14 months).

    “Consistent with previous reports (Brian et al., 2008, 2013; Georgiades et al., 2013) behavioural atypicalities as measured by the AOSI differentiated the HR and LR groups in the first year (7 months) and (marginally) early in the second year (14 months) of life.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Brian et al., 2008, 2013

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Georgiades et al., 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Other behavioural signs in the first year of life include reduced gaze to people and vocal atypicalities.

    “Other behavioural signs in the first year of life have included reduced gaze to people (Chawarska, Macari, & Shic, 2013) and vocal atypicalities (Paul, Fuerst, Ramsay, Chawarska, & Klin, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Chawarska, Macari, & Shic, 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Paul, Fuerst, Ramsay, Chawarska, & Klin, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In a small sample of HR infants who went on to an ASD diagnosis, fixation on the eyes declined between 2 and 6 months of age.

    “In a recent report, Jones and Klin (2013) found that in a small sample of HR infants who went on to an ASD diagnosis, fixation on the eyes declined between 2 and 6 months of age.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jones and Klin (2013) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    These findings are preliminary due to the modest sample size and will require confirmation in larger and other independent samples.

    “We consider these findings preliminary due to the modest sample size and they will require confirmation in larger and other independent samples.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Some atypicalities are found only in HR siblings who go on to have ASD but others are also found in HR siblings who do not, supporting the notion of an early broader autism phenotype.

    “Some of these atypicalities are found only in HR siblings who go on to have ASD but others are also found in HR siblings who do not, supporting the notion of an early broader autism phenotype (Georgiades et al., 2013; Ozonoff et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Georgiades et al., 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Ozonoff et al., 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    There was non-blind assessment to risk status at both the infancy and toddler assessments, although the team conducting the toddler visits were blind to infant AOSI scores.

    “We also note several limitations in the design, including non-blind assessment (to risk status) at both the infancy and toddler assessments, although the team conducting the toddler visits were blind to infant AOSI scores.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
34 of 34

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?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(4, 95) = .61, p = .47

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .47 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .656. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .47 · recomputed p = .656

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(3, 96) = 2.24, p = .14

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .14 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .089. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .14 · recomputed p = .089

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(3, 99) = .66, p = .37

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .37 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .579. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .37 · recomputed p = .579

3 of 3

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upF(3, 99) = 0.66reported p = .37 · recomputed p = .579

    “F(3, 99) = .66, p = .37”

  • Doesn’t add upF(3, 96) = 2.24reported p = .14 · recomputed p = .089

    “F(3, 96) = 2.24, p = .14”

  • Doesn’t add upF(4, 95) = 0.61reported p = .47 · recomputed p = .656

    “F(4, 95) = .61, p = .47”

  • Not confirmedF(1, 102) = 4.1reported p < .045 · recomputed p = .045

    “F(1, 102) = 4.10, p < .045”

  • ConsistentF(1, 99) = 3.36reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .070

    “F(1, 99) = 3.36, p = .07”

  • ConsistentF(3, 99) = 4.48reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .005

    “F(3, 99) = 4.48, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(2, 98) = 2.94reported p = .058 · recomputed p = .058

    “F(2, 98) = 2.94, p = .058”

  • ConsistentF(2, 96) = 4.43reported p = .014 · recomputed p = .014

    “F(2, 96) = 4.43, p = .014”

  • ConsistentF(4, 93) = 3.85reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .006

    “F(4, 93) = 3.85, p = .03”

    The paper states a correction for multiple tests

  • ConsistentF(4, 95) = 4.31reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .003

    “F(4, 95) = 4.31, p < .05”

10 of 10

Self-check

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

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gammer, I., Bedford, R., Elsabbagh, M., Garwood, H., Pasco, G., Tucker, L., Volein, A., Johnson, M. H., & Charman, T.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • McGill University (CA)
  • University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Charman, Tony
ORCID
Venue
Infant Behavior and Development
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-02
Volume
38
Pages
107-115
ISSN
0163-6383 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.infbeh.2014.12.017
PMC
PMC4346204
OpenAlex
W2159608964
Semantic Scholar
f1ce63180cea0eb1af301e4e379b7f62390343cc
Cited by
118
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3
FWCI
6.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Infant Behavior and Development (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Autism Speaks
  • Medical Research Council (G0701484)
  • ESF
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
autism spectrum disorder, infant siblings, familial high risk, Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, visual object tracking, social orienting, broader autism phenotype
MeSH terms
Child, Child Development Disorders, Pervasive, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Infant, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Personality Assessment, Phenotype, Prospective Studies, Psychometrics, Risk Assessment, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Siblings, Early Diagnosis, Early Medical Intervention

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

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