CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 222Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Abstract reasoning in autism: A disassociation between concept formation and concept identification.

Minshew, Nancy J., Meyer, Jessica, Goldstein, Gerald·2002·Neuropsychology
DOI 10.1037/0894-4105.16.3.327
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The concept identification and concept formation aspects of abstract reasoning were examined in 90 nonmentally retarded individuals with autism and 107 normal controls. It was hypothesized that pronounced deficits would be found on concept formation tests, whereas performance on concept identification tests would be relatively intact. There was a significant difference between individuals with autism and individuals from a matched control group on all abstract reasoning tasks, but, with the exception of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (R. K. Heaton et al., 1993), differences on concept identification tests were not clinically significant. Factor analyses showed that concept formation and concept identification tasks loaded on separate factors in the autism group but not in the control group. Stepwise discriminant function analyses revealed that 2 tests of concept formation correctly classified 78.4% of cases, whereas concept identification tasks did not pass the tolerance test.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0894-4105.16.3.327

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 39 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Goldstein, 1939, The organism.
  2. Mosher, 1966, On asking questions., 86
  3. 1999, SPSS for Windows (Version 10.0)
  4. Wechsler, 1981, The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale--Revised.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–222 of 222

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Minshew, N. J., Meyer, J., & Goldstein, G.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
ORCID
Venue
Neuropsychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2002
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
327-334
ISSN
  • 0894-4105 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-1559
DOI
10.1037/0894-4105.16.3.327
OpenAlex
W2080240018
Cited by
222
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 15
Type
conference abstract
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS33355)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD35469)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
autism spectrum disorder, abstract thinking, concept formation, concept identification, cognitive impairment, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
MeSH terms
Adult, Autistic Disorder, Cognition Disorders, Concept Formation, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Humans, Severity of Illness Index, Trail Making Test, Wechsler Scales, Discriminant Analysis

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