This legit?

[Trippy_Wonka]

Just wondering if anyone knows about this one, or knows if it might be unreliable? Seems ok to me

https://www.idrlabs.com/autism-spectrum/test.php

 

[Aspychata]

Nice test.

 

[Hypnalis]

IMO it's a poorly designed test.

Some of the questions are ok, but far too many are not. Very poorly balanced.

It might be real anyway ... but it looks like someone has collected questions from other tests without understanding how to use them, or even understanding anything about ASD.

Try this: would that test accurately distinguish between "chatty Aspies" and those who have to work quite hard to communicate well?
(@Outdated and I have both "admitted" to being articulate and talkative IRL /lol - but we're not the only ones here by any means).

They were asking "unmasked" questions (it was obvious what each one was looking for - the only "test-like" characteristic was the use of multiples of the same thing with different wording).
But given that the test is so transparent, why not more questions about expression and body language? Poor at sports" is a very poor substitute for that - huge chance of false positives.

Also FWIW I don't think it would as well for F Aspies as for M Aspies. Hard to be sure since I'm only one of them, but the data that M & F present ASD differently is solid. You'd expect to see a pattern in the questions designed to accommodate that, or two different tests. But either approach would make it even harder to create a good test.

 

[Alexej]

If you are interested in tests I find this a good resource.
A lot of their other info is good too

 

[Judge]

Just wondering if anyone knows about this one, or knows if it might be unreliable? Seems ok to me

https://www.idrlabs.com/autism-spectrum/test.php

I'd consider it an "acknowledged" test. Much like the RAADS or Baron-Cohen Autism Quotient test. Tests not designed by autistic people for autistic people.

However most importantly, regarding all such tests they are not intended to be a conclusive diagnostic tool. Consider them all as means to warrant examining the possibility of one's autism to the next level, such as being assessed by a medical professional if you so desire.

 

[jsilver256]

I like the idea and the visualization, but I find the execution somewhat flawed. The pie chart is divided into 10 categories, that gives the impression that each category is of equal weight. Should "abnormal posture" be given equal weight to say, stimming/anxiety/fixations?

Why are poor eye contact and social difficulty separate axes?

Similarly, why is noise sensitivity a category all in its own but the other sensory sensitivities don't seem to be in any of the categories?

 

[Rodafina]

I was rather confused by multiple questions concerning behavior at parties. There was no option for "I do not attend parties."

It offered a pretty graphic, but seemed to be rudimentary and heavily reliant on stereotypes.

 

[Judge]

It offered a pretty graphic, but seemed to be rudimentary and heavily reliant on stereotypes.

Unfortunately I suspect that's one of the hallmarks of assessments done by NTs for NDs.

Much like the physician who "jumps the gun" and tells someone they can't possibly be autistic merely because they have an ability to look one in the eye. Without understanding how some of us can learn to do so, even if and when it's uncomfortable for us.

 

[Xinyta]

Just wondering if anyone knows about this one, or knows if it might be unreliable? Seems ok to me

https://www.idrlabs.com/autism-spectrum/test.php

I personally would reccomend not putting too much stock in alot of 'tests'. Unless it's a website that specifically is around the understanding of it. Even then, the good ones are not perfect. As we all are unique in our conditions, despite sharing some aspect of whatever type of ASD we might have.

Due diligence is going to need to be involved. Go by the simple concept of 'if it sounds too good to be true, it most likely is'. And 'if it seems off, it probably is'.

 

[marc_101]

It doesn't look terrible, but at the same time, lots of red flags, no validation study, strange acknowledgements, no description of scoring, no information about the authors, much less their credentials. No idea about funding and what they do with their data.

Just remember that all of these tests are screeners, not confirmatory in any way.