CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 207Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentAction Observation and Synchronization

Advancing Advanced Mind‐reading Tests: Empathic Accuracy in Adults with a Pervasive Developmental Disorder

Roeyers, Herbert, Buysse, Ann, Ponnet, Koen, Pichal, Bert·2001·Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
DOI 10.1111/1469-7610.00718
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Research using advanced but static mind‐reading tests with high‐functioning adults with a pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) provided evidence for subtle social cognitive deficits. In the present study, adults with PDD were unimpaired on such tasks, relative to individually matched normal controls. Significant differences between the two groups were, however, found on a more naturalistic empathic accuracy task developed for this study. Participants viewed two videotaped interactions that both depicted a male and female stranger having an initial conversation and were asked to infer the unexpressed thoughts and feelings of the four targets. Subjects with PDD performed significantly worse on the second video. These findings suggest that the mind‐reading deficit of a subgroup of able adults with PDD may only be apparent when a sufficiently complex naturalistic assessment method is being used.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1469-7610.00718

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Consensus measures of EA like the one used here distinguish typically developing individuals from perceivers with psychological disorders characterized by social impairments, such as ASD.

    “In behavioral research, consensus measures of EA like the one used here already have proven to be powerful measures of social function: they can predict social functioning in typically developing individuals (44) and distinguish them from perceivers with psychological disorders characterized by social impairments, such as ASD (41).”

    From The neural bases of empathic accuracy (2009) · cites this paper as [41]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Roeyers, H., Buysse, A., Ponnet, K., & Pichal, B.
Affiliations
Ghent University (BE)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-02
Volume
42
Issue
2
Pages
271-278
ISSN
  • 0021-9630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7610
DOI
10.1111/1469-7610.00718
OpenAlex
W2147172611
Cited by
207
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 10
FWCI
1.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 978 d)
Locations
  • Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
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 › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
Keywords
theory of mind, empathic accuracy, pervasive developmental disorders, autism spectrum disorder, social cognition, high-functioning adults, naturalistic assessment
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Autistic Disorder, Empathy, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Middle Aged, Perception, Social Behavior, Video Recording

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