Abstract
Assessment of restricted, repetitive behaviors (RRB) in autism evaluations often assumes that these behaviors negatively impact the individual. Qualitative studies of first-person accounts indicate the negative impact of the stigma associated with RRBs but also provide insights into the positive aspects. The current study explores how framing response options as negative (i.e., level of problem associated with occurrence) or positive (i.e., level of benefit associated with occurrence) affects RRB self-reports in autistic adults. Sixty-six autistic adults aged 18-59 filled out the Repetitive Behavior Scale-Revised (RBS-R) and a modified RBS-R+, assessing problems and benefits of reported behaviors, respectively. There was a moderate to strong correlation between the forms, each assessing problems and benefits in terms of the number of behaviors endorsed (r = 0.746) and the levels of benefits and problems (r = 0.637). Autistic adults reported a higher number of RRBs in the form that assessed problems, but the number of behaviors was comparable between the forms when counting in the response option of the occurrence of behavior without having a benefit. Despite some variability in the level of problems and the benefits across the subdomains of RRB, autistic adults largely rated comparable levels of associated benefits and problems, highlighting the complexity of RRBs as having both positive and negative impacts. Future screening and diagnostic tools for adults should aim to assess both positive and negative aspects of autistic features to afford a more nuanced understanding of individual experiences while still yielding diagnostically relevant information. Qualitative studies are needed to better understand the complex experiences associated with these behaviors; however, it may be important to ensure that options for endorsement of behaviors without a specific benefit are also needed to ensure some behaviors (e.g., self-injurious behaviors) are not missed.