A Large-Scale Study of the Characteristics of Asperger Syndrome

Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 2007, 42(4), 448–459 

© Division on Developmental Disabilities 

A Large-Scale Study of the Characteristics of 

Asperger Syndrome 

Brenda Smith Myles, Hyo Jung Lee, 

Sheila M. Smith, Kai-Chien Tien, 

Yu-Chi Chou, 

and Terri Cooper Swanson 

University of Kansas 

Jill Hudson 

Ohio Center for Autism and Low Incidence 

Abstract: This article presents the results of a large-scale study of the characteristics of 156 individuals with 

Asperger Syndrome (AS) ages 12 to 18. Specifically, cognitive (intellectual, empathizing, systemizing), adaptive 

behavior, behavior, temperament, and sensory profiles of study participants are overviewed. These characteristics 

are discussed as they relate to diagnostic criteria and instructional planning for adolescents with AS. 

Asperger Syndrome (AS) is a developmental 

disability that is defined by severe and sustained 

impairment in social interaction and 

restrictive, repetitive patterns of behavior, interest, 

and activity. As first described in 1944 

by an Austrian pediatrician, Hans Asperger 

(translated in Frith, 1991), the syndrome involved 

a qualitative impairment in reciprocal 

social interaction and behavior oddities, such 

as repetitive and stereotyped play, without delays 

in speech acquisition. Furthermore, Asperger 

noted that children with this disability 

demonstrated poor motor coordination and 

extreme interest in memorizing information. 

Although Asperger described this syndrome 

in the 1940s, it was not recognized by the 

English-speaking world until Wing introduced 

Asperger’s work in 1981 and suggested that AS 

was a type of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). 

In 1994, the American Psychiatric Association 

(APA) recognized AS as a subtype of 

pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) with 

specific diagnostic criteria that differ from autism. 

Nevertheless, differential diagnosis be- 

The work reported here was supported by a research 

grant from the Organization for Autism Research. 

Correspondence concerning this article 

should be addressed to Brenda Smith Myles, Chief 

of Programs and Development, Ohio Center for 

Autism and Low Incidence, 5220 N. High Street, 

Building C1, Columbus, OH 43221. Email: 

brenda_myles@ocali.org 

448 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-December 2007 

tween AS and autism is often problematic, and 

disagreements exist on the specific characteristics 

of AS (Barnhill, 2001; Kasari & Rotheram-Fuller, 

2005; Khouzam, El-Gabalawi, 

Pirwani, & Priest, 2004; Myles, Barnhill, Hagiwara, 

Griswold, & Simpson, 2001; Woodbury- 

Smith, Klin, & Volkmar, 2005). For instance, 

according to both the International Classification 

of Diseases (ICD-10; World Health Organization 

[WHO], 1992) and the Diagnostic and 

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—4 th Edition, 

Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR; APA, 2000) 

criteria, there is no clinically significant delay 

in language or cognitive development. On the 

other hand, Gillberg and Gillberg (1989) included 

possible delayed language development 

in their criteria, whereas Szatmari, 

Bremner, and Nagy (1989) mentioned communication 

and speech impairments but without 

directly mentioning delays in either area. 

As an additional example of the continuing 

lack of agreement, the DSM-IV-TR listed no 

specific motor deficit, whereas the ICD-10 

stated, “This disorder is often associated with 

marked clumsiness” (WHO, 1992, p. 377). 

Woodbury-Smith et al. acknowledged that 

“the onset criteria, as currently defined, are 

unreliable differentiators of autism and AS, 

and do not reflect a differentiation between 

autism and AS on the basis of research on 

developmental pathways, but, rather, have 

been set arbitrarily” (p. 239). 

In light of these inconsistencies in the diag-

nostic criteria for a disorder that is becoming 

more and more widespread, researchers are 

still attempting to understand and define diagnostic 

characteristics of AS. As a result, several 

additional characteristics have been suggested, 

including motor clumsiness (Ehlers & 

Gillberg, 1993; Ghaziuddin & Butler, 1998; 

Gillberg, 1985; Williams, 2001), academic difficulties 

(Myles & Simpson, 2001; Myles et al., 

2001; Williams, 2001), unique sensory responses 

(Church, Alisanski, & Amanullah, 

2000; Myles, Cook, Miller, Rinner, & Robbins, 

2000; Myles & Simpson, 2001; Myles et al., 

2001), emotional vulnerability and difficulties 

(Ghaziuddin, Weidmer-Mikhail, & Ghaziuddin, 

1998; Gillberg, 1985; Ryan, 1992; Wing, 

1981; Williams, 2001), and poor adaptive behavior 

(Myles et al., 2001). 

Despite a growing body of research and 

descriptions of symptoms from a variety of 

sources, an empirically valid profile of the 

characteristics of these individuals is urgently 

needed. The purpose of this study was to further 

describe the characteristics of AS exhibited 

in 156 adolescents identified with this 

syndrome. The investigation was a part of a 

larger national study conducted at a university 

in the midwestern United States. 

Method 

Sample and Setting 

Thirty-three females (21%) and 123 (79%) 

male youths with AS ages 12 through 18 years 

(mean age: 14.97 years) participated in the 

study. Participants had received their diagnoses 

independently from a licensed professional 

(e.g., psychologist, psychiatrist) using 

the DSM-IV or the DSM-IV-TR criteria for AS. 

The diagnoses were verified using the Asperger 

Syndrome Diagnostic Scale (ASDS; 

Myles, Bock, & Simpson, 2000). Mean scores 

on this instrument of 107.29 (SD 16.70) 

indicated that they were very likely to have AS. 

Their mean full scale intelligence quotient 

(FSIQ) as measured by the Wechsler Intelligence 

Scales (Wechsler, 1991) was 102.63 

(SD 22.25). Ten percent of the sample had 

IQs greater than 130. Three had an FSIQ in 

the 60s; two had a verbal IQ (VIQ) in the 

average range, while one had a similar performance 

IQ (PIQ). 

Eighty-six (55%) of the participants had comorbid 

diagnoses, which included attention 

deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD; 40%), 

depression (12%), anxiety disorder (7%), 

Tourette Syndrome (3%), oppositional defiant 

disorder (5%), obsessive compulsive disorder 

(5%), and bipolar disorder (2%). Further, 

these adolescents were prescribed a 

mean of 2.89 (range 1–9) medications classified 

as central nervous system stimulant 

(49%), antidepressant (41%), antipsychotic 

(24%), or antihypertensive (9%). 

Procedure 

This study was part of an extensive investigation 

conducted through the Special Education 

Department in the College of Education 

at a large midwestern university. After receiving 

approval for the study from a university 

institutional review board, calls for participants 

were posted on the websites of the three 

major parent organizations focusing on Asperger 

Syndrome. Interested parties were 

asked to contact the authors and subsequently 

completed the instruments via mail and personal 

interview. 

Instruments included the following: (a) the 

Family Demographic Profile (Myles, Hagiwara, 

Carlson, & Simpson, 1999); (b) the Vineland 

Adaptive Behaviors Scales (VABS; Sparrow, 

Balla, & Cicchetti, 1984); (c) the Behavior Assessment 

System for Children—Parent Rating System 

(BASC PRS; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992); 

and (d) The Early Adolescent Temperament (Ellis 

& Rothbart, 2001). Further, parents asked 

their child’s teacher to complete the BASC— 

Teacher Rating Scale (TRS; Reynolds & Kamphaus). 

Students were given the option to 

complete the (a) BASC—Student Self-Report of 

Personality (SRP; Reynolds & Kamphuas), (b) 

the Empathy Quotient (EQ) Questionnaire (Baron-Cohen, 

2003), (c) the Systemizing Quotient 

(SQ) Questionnaire (Baron-Cohen, 2003), and 

(d) the Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (Brown 

& Dunn, 2002) independently or through an 

interview with the authors. Finally, parents 

were asked to report their child’s intellectual 

quotient as gathered from school or clinical 

records. 

Characteristics of Asperger Syndrome / 449

Instruments 

A brief overview of the instruments reported 

in this article follows: 

The Family Demographic Profile. This instrument 

(Myles et al., 1999) was developed to 

identify children with AS and family characteristics, 

including the characteristics of immediate 

and extended family characteristics. 

Empathy Quotient Questionnaire. The EQ 

(Baron-Cohen & 2003) is a self-report questionnaire 

consisting of an affective component, 

a cognitive component, and a mixed 

component. It was originally developed for 

use with adults of normal intelligence. This 

60-item scale measures the ability to empathize. 

Specifically, the EQ measures an individual’s 

drive to identify another person’s 

emotions and thoughts and to provide an appropriate 

emotional response to his or her 

emotional state. EQ ranges from low to maximum. 

Systemizing Quotient Questionnaire. The SQ 

(Baron-Cohen, 2003) is a 60-item scale that 

measures an individual’s drive to analyze, explore, 

and construct a system. Participants can 

receive a score in one of five categories that 

range from low to maximum. 

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale. The VABS 

(Sparrow et al., 1984) is a semi-structured interview 

designed to assess personal and social 

skills. Specifically, the VABS assesses adaptive 

behavior by measuring a person’s performance 

in the following four domains: Communication 

Skills, Daily Living Skills, Social 

Skills, and Motor Skills. Standard scores are 

used. 

Behavior Assessment System for Children. The 

BASC (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992) is a multidimensional 

assessment used to evaluate a 

child’s behavior, emotions, self-perceptions, 

and personal history. It consists of three types 

of tools, the Parent Rating Scales (PRS), the 

Teacher Rating Scales (TRS), and the Self- 

Report of Personality (SRP). 

The PRS measures a child’s adaptive and 

problem behaviors in community and home 

settings whereas the TRS is a comprehensive 

measure of both adaptive and problem behaviors 

in the school setting, Both the PRS and 

the TRS adaptive skills composite scores consist 

of Leadership and Social Skills. The TRS 

also includes study skills in this domain. Sim- 

ilar to the VABS, social skills include social 

adaptation in communication and socialization. 

The SRP contains the following three 

subdomains, which comprise the composite 

score: School Maladjustment, Clinical Maladjustment, 

and Personal Adjustment. Clinical 

Scales are scored on a 5-point scale using tscores 

wherein a score of 70 and above is 

Clinical Significant and a score of 30 and below 

is Very Low. The Adaptive Scales also use 

a 5-point scale; however, here a score of 70 

and above is considered Very High and a score 

of 30 and below is considered Clinically Significant. 

Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire— 

Revised. The EATQ-R (Ellis & Rothbart, 

2001) assesses temperament and mood in adolescents. 

The Temperament Scales, which focus 

primarily on self-regulation, include Activation 

Control, Affiliation, Attention, Fear, 

Frustration, High-Intensity Pleasure, Inhibitory 

Control, and Shyness. The Behavioral 

Scales, which focus on temperament traits related 

to socialization, include Aggression and 

Depressive Mood. The instrument is scored 

using a 5-point scale wherein 1 almost always 

untrue and 5 almost always true. This instrument 

is completed by parents. 

Results 

Results of this study as they pertain to adolescents 

with AS will be presented below under 

the following major headlines: family history, 

cognitive profiles, adaptive behavior, behavior, 

temperament, and sensory issues. 

Family History 


Data on family history were collected on participants 

and their family members using the 

Family Demographic Profile (Myles et al., 

1999). In total, 86 parents completed the measure. 

As shown in Table 1, fathers of the participants 

with AS, followed by mothers and paternal 

grandfathers were reported to have the 

majority of disabilities or mental health conditions 

presented. The most frequently occurring 

disabilities or mental health issues included 

ADHD, general behavior issues, 

depression, and AS. 

Participants’ siblings were primarily diag-

TABLE 1 

Summary of Family History of Related Diagnoses or Challenges 

Descriptors of Diagnoses or Challenges 

AS ADHD BD Behavior Bipolar LD Sch Speech TS Dep Anxiety OCD PD Total 

Family Member 

Father 9 (10) 13 (15) 3 (4) 8 (9) 4 (5) 4 (5) 0 (0) 1 (1) 1 (1) 3 (3) 2 (2) 1 (1) 1 (1) 50 

Mother 3 (3) 17 (20) 1 (1) 3 (3) 4 (5) 3 (5) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 5 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 37 

Paternal 

Grandfather 3 (3) 4 (5) 1 (1) 6 (7) 3 (3) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 19 

Paternal 

Grandmother 1 (1) 1 (1) 0 (0) 4 (5) 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 11 

Maternal 

Grandfather 1 (1) 3 (3.49) 0 (0) 4 (5) 2 (2) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 15 

Maternal 

Grandmother 0 (0) 3 (3.49) 1 (1) 4 (5) 0 (0) 4 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (6) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 18 

Total 17 (3) 41 (8) 6 (1) 29 (6) 14 (3) 11 (2) 2 (1) 2 (1) 1 (1) 18 (3) 3 (1) 4 (1) 2 (1) 150 

Note. Based on a sample size of 86. Raw data are presented. Percentages appear in parentheses. 

Asperger syndrome (AS), Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), Behavior Disorder (BD), General Issues with Behavior (B), Depression (Dep), Learning 

Disability (LD), Schizophrenia (Sch), Tourette Syndrome (TS), Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), Personality Disorder (PD). 


TABLE 2 

Summary of Siblings History of Related Diagnoses 

nosed with academic challenges (25%), followed 

by ADHD (13%) and AS (4%). Data on 

sibling order revealed that 27% of first-born 

and 26% of second-born siblings had exceptionalities. 

By comparison, 13% of third-born 

siblings had disabilities whereas no reported 

special needs were reported among fourthborn 

siblings (see Table 2). 

Cognitive Profiles 

Gender Descriptors of Diagnoses or Challenges 

Birth 

Order N M (%) F (%) AcD AS ADHD AU Bipolar LD MR Speech TS Total 

1 st 

2 nd 

3 rd 

4 th 

73 1 31 (42) 41 (56) 20 (27) 4 (5) 13 (18) 0 (0) 1 (1) 1 (1) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 40 (55) 

38 26 (68) 12 (32) 10 (26) 1 (3) 4 (11) 1 (3) 1 (3) 1 (3) 1 (3) 0 (0) 1 (3) 20 (53) 

16 6 (38) 10 (62) 3 (19) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (6) 1 (6) 1 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 6 (38) 

7 4 (57) 3 (43) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 

Total 134 67 66 33 5 17 2 3 3 1 1 1 66 

Note. Based on a sample size of 86. 1 Missing data on gender. Raw data are presented. Percentages are in 

parentheses. 

Academic Difficulties (AcD), Asperger Syndrome (AS), Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), 

Autism (AU), Behavior Disorder (BD), Learning Disability (LD), Mental Retardation (MR), Non-verbal 

Learning Disability (NLD), Pervasive Development Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS), Schizophrenia 

(Sch), Tourette Syndrome (TS). 

Intellectual skills. According to one of the 

primary diagnostic standards for AS, the DSM- 

IV-TR (APA, 2000), there is no clinically significant 

delay in cognitive development 

among individuals with AS. 

Participants with AS in the current study 

had a significantly higher Verbal Intellectual 

Quotient (VIQ) (M 109.28, SD 19.62) 

than Performance IQ (PIQ) (M 99.42, SD 

19.78), t(59) 4.054, p .001 (.000). Both of 

these scores, as well as participants’ FSIQ 

(M 102.63, SD 22.25) fell in the Average 

range. 

Social cognitive skills. According to Baron- 

Cohen (2003), the primary difference between 

male and female brains is related to 

empathizing and systemizing. Empathizing, as 

a prominent feature of the female brain, is the 

drive to identify others’ emotions and 

thoughts, and to respond to these in socially 

appropriate ways. Thus, empathizing allows 

people to understand others and to predict 

the social world around them. Unlike empathizing, 

systemizing is the drive to analyze, 

explore, and construct a system in order to 

understand the basic principles and rules of 

the behavior system and control it (Baron- 

Cohen, Richler, Bisarya, Gurunathan, & 

Wheelwright, 2003). As reported by the adolescents 

in this study, no significant difference 

was found between the male and female 

groups, t(85) 1.149, p .05 (.151). Both 

groups’ scores (females: M 30.71, SD 

13.82; males: M 25.55, SD 11.35) were 

categorized as “low” on the EQ scale. Similar 

to findings related to the EQ scale, no significant 

differences were noted between the systemizing 

skills of males (M 28.77, SD 

11.84) and females (M 24.52, SD 11.25), 

both groups scoring in the Average range on 

the SQ scale. Finally, the relationship between 

scores on the EQ and SQ was also investigated. 

The EQ and the SQ of participants with AS 

were significantly positively correlated with 

each other (r .340, p .01). 

Adaptive Behavior 


According to DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000), individuals 

with AS demonstrate no clinically significant 

delay in adaptive behavior other than 

in social interaction. In order to assess the 

adaptive behaviors of participants with AS, the

current study utilized two assessment tools: 

the VABS (Sparrow et al., 1984) and the BASC 

(Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992). 

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. Results 

on the VABS revealed that the participants 

with AS had low or moderately low levels of 

adaptive skills across all domains, including 

communication (moderately low; M 76.10, 

SD 21.33), daily living skills (low; M 67.75, 

SD 18.26), socialization (low; M 62.27, 

SD 20.25), adaptive composite score (low; 

M 64.28, SD 19.42), and maladaptive 

behavior (low; M 21.36, SD 8.43). 

Behavior Assessment System for Children. The 

BASC’s Adaptive Skills subdomain, which is 

composed of Leadership, Social Skills, and 

Study Skills (the latter on the TRS version for 

educators only), was also used to assess adaptive 

behaviors. Parents reported that their 

children’s adaptive behavior skills were in the 

At-Risk range while the teachers indicated that 

their students’ skills were in the Average 

range. A significant difference was found between 

the two groups’ perceptions on Leadership, 

t(67) 6.718, p .001 (.000), Social 

Skills, t(67) 8.122, p .001 (.000), and 

Composite Score, t(67) 9.700, p .001 

(.000). 

Behavior 

The BASC was also used to assess behavior 

issues in the adolescents with AS as perceived 

by parents, teachers, and the students themselves. 

Externalizing Problems Composite. A significant 

difference existed between parents’ and 

teachers’ perceptions of Hyperactivity, Aggression, 

and Conduct Problems, t(67) 6.725, 

p .001 (.000). Specifically, parents reported 

that their adolescent obtained an At-Risk Externalizing 

Problems Composite (M 60.96, 

SD 12.94). In contrast, teachers indicated 

that their student performed in the Average 

range (M 51.53, SD 9.04). 

In the three subscales comprising the Externalizing 

Problems Composite, parents reported 

their adolescent’s functioning as being 

in the At-Risk range in Hyperactivity (M 

68.35, SD 16.91), and in the Average range 

for Aggression (M 56.96, SD 11.71) and 

Conduct Problems (M 52.49, SD 10.61). 

In contrast, teachers’ data indicated that At- 

tention (M 56.40, SD 10.38), Hyperactivity 

(M 54.88, SD 12.15), and Conduct 

Problems (M 46.50, SD 5.31) were all 

perceived to be in the Average range. 

Internalizing Problems Composite. Parents’ 

and teachers’ data differed significantly with 

regard to the Internalizing Problems Composite, 

t(67) 3.062, p .005 (.003). Specifically, 

parents reported that their adolescent 

children were At-Risk in Anxiety (M 65.38, 

SD 12.94) and Depression (M 65.04, SD 

16.25), but Average in Somatization (M 

55.09, SD 13.89). Teachers, on the other 

hand, considered their students to be Average 

in all the subscales, with ratings similar to 

parents in Somatization (see Table 3). 

School Problems Composite. The BASC 

teacher rating scale contains three domains 

that assess school problems; the parent rating 

scale contains only one subscale (Attention 

Problems). On the School Problems Composite 

and its subscales, Learning Problems and 

Attention Problems, students with AS were 

rated by their teachers as Average. In contrast, 

parents indicated their adolescent were At- 

Risk for Attention Problems (M 65.01, SD 

10.67). 

Behavioral Symptoms Index. A significant difference 

was found in parents’ and teachers’ 

perceptions of the overall behavior of adolescents 

with AS, t(66) 5.96, p .000 (.000). 

Parents and teachers concurred in their ratings 

for Atypicality, both indicating that the 

adolescent was At Risk. Further, parents reported 

their children were in the Clinically 

Significant range for Withdrawal (M 72.40, 

SD 15.44), whereas teacher ratings fell 

within the At-Risk range (M 60.54, SD 

14.46) (see Table 3). 

Item analysis. Both parents and professionals 

have voiced concern regarding specific areas 

of behavior among individuals with AS. To 

further investigate these areas, items related 

to Aggression, Anxiety, Atypicality, Depression, 

and Withdrawal were analyzed (see Table 

4). Items that received a mean score of at 

least 2.5 on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 never, 2 

sometimes, 3 often, 4 always) are shown, 

as these are considered to be areas of concern 

Reynolds and Kamphaus (1992). 

BASC Self-Report Profile. Unlike the Parent 

Rating Scales and the Teacher Rating Scales, 

which allow for direct comparison across the 


TABLE 3 

Descriptive Data on BASC PRS and TRS 

Scales and Composites 

two types of raters, the Student Self-Report Profile 

(SRP) does not permit such analysis. That is, 

students’ self-evaluations do not allow for comparisons 

with adults’ perceptions. As shown in 

Table 5, students with AS perceived themselves 

to be similar to neurotypical peers in all areas. 

Parent Rating Scale Teacher Rating Scale 

M SD M SD 

Aggression 56.96 11.71 52.63 9.91 

Hyperactivity 68.35 16.91 54.88 12.15 

Conduct Problems 52.49 10.61 46.50 5.31 

Externalizing Problems Composite 60.96 12.94 51.53 9.04 

Anxiety 65.38 12.94 57.50 12.76 

Depression 65.04 16.25 57.12 16.32 

Somatization 55.09 13.89 55.20 14.55 

Internalizing Problems Composite 63.94 14.48 57.85 14.68 

Attention Problems 65.01 10.67 56.40 10.38 

Learning Problems 50.19 6.79 

School Problems Composite 53.45 8.24 

Atypicality 68.49 18.47 62.79 19.05 

Withdrawal 72.40 15.44 60.54 14.46 

Behavioral Symptoms Index 70.48 15.31 58.69 14.24 

Leadership 38.25 7.01 45.06 6.93 

Social Skills 36.49 7.43 44.93 7.66 

Study Skills 47.23 7.32 

Adaptive Skills Composite 35.74 6.74 45.43 6.79 

Note. The Levene’s Test was significant at the .05 level for the Externalizing Problems Composite and the 

subscales of Hyperactivity and Conduct Problems; therefore scores for “equal variance not assumed” were used. 

TABLE 4 

Temperament 

Parents completed the EATQ-R on their adolescent 

with AS to assess his or her temperament 

using eight subscales and behaviors divided 

into two domains. 

Item Analysis of BASC—Aggression, Anxiety, Atypicality, Depression, and Withdrawal 

Items PRS TRS 

Aggression 

Argues when denied own way 2.78 

Anxiety 

Is nervous 2.65 

Says, “I’m not very good at this.” 2.53 

Worries 2.81 

Depression 

Is easily upset 2.74 

Withdrawal 

Avoids competing with other adolescents 2.56 

Has trouble making new friends 3.13 2.62 

454 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-December 2007

TABLE 5 

Descriptive Data on BASC-SRP 

Scales and Composites M SD 

Attitude to School 55.26 12.06 

Attitude to Teachers 50.69 11.41 

Sensation Seeking 48.63 10.36 

School Maladjustment Composite 51.83 11.20 

Anxiety 51.37 10.10 

Atypicality 56.00 11.30 

Locus of Control 55.51 11.45 

Social Stress 56.04 10.63 

Somatization 52.84 12.05 

Clinical Maladjustment Composite 55.30 10.86 

Depression 53.33 10.69 

Sense of Inadequacy 50.53 9.63 

Interpersonal Relations 40.13 13.59 

Relations with Parents 49.46 9.32 

Self-Esteem 47.66 10.87 

Self-Reliance 45.22 12.25 

Personal Adjustment Composite 44.40 11.98 

Emotional Symptoms Index 54.82 10.75 

Temperament Scales. Parents reported 

higher scores on the temperament scales of 

Affiliation (M 2.09, SD .75), Fear (M 

2.95, SD .79), Frustration (M 3.94, SD 

.66), and Shyness (M 3.00, SD 1.05). The 

lowest scores were assigned to the subscale of 

Activation Control (M 2.09, SD .75). All 

scale scores appear in Table 6. 

Behavioral Scales. The EATQ-R Behavioral 

Scales include Aggression and Depressive 

TABLE 6 

Descriptive Data on EATQ-R 

Mood (see Table 6). Parents’ mean scores 

were above those of peers in the norming 

sample in the area of Aggression (M 3.09, 

SD .84) and Depressive Mood (M 2.99, 

SD .62). 

Item analysis. Just as with the BASC, an 

analysis on items related to Aggression, Depressive 

Mood, Frustration, Inhibitory Control, 

and Shyness was conducted (see Table 7). 

Items that received a mean score of at least 3.0 

Scales M SD 

Temperament Scales 

Activation Control 2.09 .75 

Affiliation 2.95 .77 

Attention 2.30 .70 

Fear 2.95 .79 

Frustration 3.94 .66 

Surgency/High-Intensity Pleasure 2.52 .87 

Inhibitory Control 2.78 .59 

Shyness 3.00 1.05 

Behavioral Scales 

Aggression 3.09 .84 

Depressive Mood 2.99 .62 


TABLE 7 

Item Analysis of EATQ-R 

on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 almost always untrue, 

2 usually untrue, 3 sometimes true, sometimes 

untrue, 4 usually true, 5 almost 

always true) are shown. 

Sensory Issues 

Although not mentioned as diagnostic criteria 

in the DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000), sensory issues 

have been reported as inherent in AS (cf. 

Shore, 2003; Willey, 1999). In the current 

study, 94 adolescents with AS completed the 

Adolescent and Adult Sensory Profile (Brown 

& Dunn, 2002) as a measure of their sensory 

challenges. Results showed that in Sensory 

Sensitivity (M 41.48, SD 9.31) and Sensation 

Avoiding (M 45.23, SD 12.36), this 

population scored “More Than Most People.” 

However, their Low Registration (M 40.30, 

Items M SD 

Aggression 

When angry at someone, says thing s/he knows will hurt that 

person’s feelings. 3.12 1.20 

If very angry, might hit someone. 2.99 1.37 

Tends to be rude to people s/he doesn’t like. 3.14 1.36 

Tends to try to blame mistakes on someone else. 3.53 1.31 

Slams doors when angry. 3.60 1.28 

Depressive Mood 

Often does not seem to enjoy things as much as his/her 

friends. 3.47 1.04 

Is sad more often than other people realize. 3.68 1.19 

Sometimes seems sad even when s/he should be enjoying 

her/himself like at Christmas or on a trip. 3.07 1.20 

Frustration 

Is annoyed by little things other kids do. 3.95 1.06 

Gets very irritated when someone criticizes him/her. 4.05 1.00 

Gets irritated when I will not take him/her someplace s/he 

wants to go. 3.84 1.09 

Gets irritated when s/he has to stop doing something s/he is 

enjoying. 4.40 .85 

Hates it when people don’t agree with him/her. 3.79 .84 

Gets very frustrated when s/he makes a mistake in his/her 

schoolwork. 3.58 1.16 

Inhibitory Control 

Has a hard time waiting his/her turn to speak when excited. 4.26 .95 

Shyness 

Can generally think of something to say, even to strangers. 3.22 1.34 

Is not shy. 3.10 1.39 

SD 8.35) and Sensation Seeking (M 

42.39, SD 9.58) scores were “Similar to Most 

People.” 

Discussion 


Based on the findings of the current study, a 

picture of the adolescent with AS emerges. 

Overall, the adolescents with AS who participated 

in this study had an average FSIQ consistent 

with that found in other research (cf., 

Barnhill, Hagiwara, Myles, & Simpson, 2000; 

Ghaziuddin & Mountain-Kimchi, 2004; 

Koyama, Tachimori, Osada, Takeda, & Kurita, 

2007) and the DSM-IV-TR criteria (APA, 

2000). However, three individuals identified 

as having AS by medical professionals did not 

have an FSIQ in the Average range; rather 

their PIQ or VIQ was in the Average range.

Giftedness appears to be a characteristic of 

many individuals with AS although this study 

revealed that a smaller number of adolescents 

possessed this cognitive characteristic than 

found in a previous a study (Barnhill et al., 

2000). 

Despite having average to above-average IQ, 

individuals with AS tend to have difficulties 

empathizing with others because of a reported 

lack of theory of mind or social cognition 

(Carothers & Taylor, 2004; Davies, Bishop, 

Manstead, & Tantum, 1994), consistent with 

the research of Baron-Cohen et al. (2003). 

While it has been found that individuals with 

AS have a strength in analyzing, exploring, 

categorizing, or constructing systems and that 

this skill is often found to be negatively correlated 

with empathizing (Baron-Cohen et al.), 

the adolescents in the current study demonstrated 

only average skills in this area. Previous 

research by Baron-Cohen and colleagues using 

the EQ and SQ with adults with AS has led 

to the conjecture that while empathizing is a 

challenge from individuals with AS from adolescence 

to adulthood, systemizing is a skill 

that develops over time. Understanding the 

role of empathizing and systemizing in individuals 

with AS may allow educators to use the 

average systemizing skills of individuals with 

AS to teach concepts, including nonverbal 

language and theory of mind. 

As demonstrated in this study, the gap between 

IQ and the adaptive behavior skills of 

individuals with AS can be marked. This finding 

is supported by other researchers (see Lee 

& Park, in press, for a review of the literature 

on this topic). In short, studies on the adaptive 

behaviors of individuals with AS suggest 

that challenges in this area are part of the 

characteristics of AS despite their exclusion 

from current diagnostic criteria. 

Again, this finding has tremendous ramifications 

for instruction. That is, while daily 

living skills are often taught to individuals with 

cognitive disabilities, instruction in this area 

needs to be expanded to include individuals 

with AS, despite their average to above-average 

IQ, to ensure that they can live and work 

independently with success. 

In terms of the behavioral issues of individuals 

with AS, the research is equivocal in that 

parents and educators disagree on the presence 

of internalizing or externalizing behav- 

iors (Barnhill et al., 2000). In brief, parents 

tend to identify problem behaviors whereas 

teachers do not. The reasons for these perceived 

differences between the two groups are 

open to speculation. Do data reflect actual 

behavioral differences at home and school or 

differences of perception? Do the demands of 

the home and school differ, such that behavioral 

issues exist in one environment and not 

the other? Or do adolescents with AS “hold it 

together” in a stressful school environment 

only to exhibit behavior issues in the confines 

of a safe environment—the home? 

Additional research is needed to answer 

these questions. Of concern is the finding that 

adolescents did not report experiencing behavior 

challenges. Consistent with previous research 

(Barnhill, Hagiwara, Myles, Simpson, 

Brick, et al., 2000), these data suggest a lack of 

awareness or denial by participants. As with 

the interpretations of other data in this study, 

their meaning awaits further research. 

Finally, adolescents’ sensory sensitivity suggests 

that they are relatively more distractible 

and hyperactive in response to sensory stimuli 

than neurotypical peers, a finding that appears 

consistent with parents’ and teachers’ 

reports of hyperactivity. This may result in a 

failure to complete tasks due to switched attention 

to non-task related stimuli during 

work time. In addition, adolescents in this 

study were sensitive to environmental input, 

and reported attempting to reduce incoming 

stimuli, often through withdrawal or resistance. 

Behavioral manifestations in this regard 

include having frequent meltdowns or refusing 

to participate in transitions, or novel or 

unpredictable activities. Such reactions may 

be directly related to parents’ reports of their 

children’s behavior. That is, behavioral issues 

experienced by individuals with AS may have a 

sensory base and, thus, may require sensory 

interventions (Dunn, Myles, & Orr, 2002; 

Myles et al., 2004). 

Overall, this research yields a profile of the 

complexity of AS as expressed by adolescents: 

an average to above-average IQ with adaptive 

behavior skills that are not commensurate 

with each other; a lack of ability to empathize 

with others as well as a deficit in recognizing 

their own needs; behavioral issues, both overt 

and covert, that may be related to sensory 

concerns; and average skills in providing 


themselves with much-needed order and predictability. 

Research in the field of AS is still in its early 

stages, and this is particularly true in terms of 

our understanding of the characteristics of 

individuals with AS. Clearly, more research on 

this topic is needed to develop an empirical 

foundation for understanding students with 

AS as an essential component of improving 

their educational experiences. While the sample 

size of the present study as well as its 

nature as a volunteer sample limits generalization, 

it is hoped that these findings will serve 

as one facet leading to more positive outcomes 

for individuals with AS. 

References 

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic 

and statistical manual of mental disorders (4 th ed.). 

Washington, DC: Author. 

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic 

and statistical manual of mental disorders (4 th ed., 

text revision). Washington, DC: Author. 

Asperger, H. (1991). Autistic psychopathy in childhood 

(U. Frith, Trans.). In U. Frith (Ed.), Autism 

and Asperger syndrome (pp. 37–92). New York: 

Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 

1944). 

Barnhill, G. P. (2001). Social attributions and depression 

in adolescents with Asperger Syndrome. 

Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 

16, 46–53. 

Barnhill, G., Hagiwara, T., Myles, B. S., & Simpson, 

R. L. (2000). Asperger Syndrome: A study of the 

cognitive profiles of 37 children and adolescents. 

Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 

15, 146–153. 

Barnhill, G. P., Hagiwara, T., Myles, B. S., Simpson, 

R. L., Brick, M. L., & Griswold, D. E. (2000). 

Parent, teacher, and self-report of problem and 

adaptive behaviors in children and adolescents 

with Asperger Syndrome. Diagnostique, 25, 147– 

167. 

Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The essential difference: Male 

and female brains and the truth about autism. Cambridge, 

MA: Basic Books. Baron-Cohen, S., & 

Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: 

An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome 

or high-functioning autism, and normal 

sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental 

Disorders, 34, 163–175. 

Baron-Cohen, S., Richler, J., Bisarya, D., Gurunathan, 

N., & Wheelwright, S. (2003). The systemizing 

quotient: An investigation of adults with 

Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism, 


and normal sex differences. In U. Frith & E. Hill 

(Eds.), Autism: Mind and brain (pp. 161–186). 

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 

Brown, C. E., & Dunn, W. (2002). Adolescent/Adult 

Sensory Profile: User’s manual. San Antonio, TX: 

The Psychological Corporation. 

Carothers, D., & Taylor, R. (2004). Social cognitive 

processing in elementary school children with 

Asperger syndrome. Education and Training in Developmental 

Disabilities, 39, 177–187. 

Church, C., Alisanski, S., & Amanullah, S. (2000). 

The social, behavioral, and academic experiences 

of children with Asperger syndrome. Focus on Autism 

and Other Developmental Disabilities, 15, 57–65. 

Davies, S., Bishop, D., Manstead, A.S.R., & Tantam, 

D. (1994). Face perception in children with autism 

and Asperger’s syndrome. Journal of Child 

Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 1033–1057. 

Dunn, W., Myles, B. S., & Orr, S. (2002). Sensory 

processing issues associated with Asperger syndrome: 

A preliminary investigation. American Journal 

of Occupational Therapy, 56, 97–102. 

Ehlers, S., & Gilberg, C. (1993). The epidemiology 

of Asperger syndrome: A total population study. 

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34, 1327– 

1350. 

Ellis, L. K., & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). Revision of the 

early adolescent temperament questionnaire. Poster 

presented at the 2001 Biennial Meeting of the 

Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, 

MN. 

Ghaziuddin, M., & Butler, E. (1998). Clumsiness in 

autism and Asperger syndrome: A further report. 

Journal of Intellectual Ability Research, 42, 43–48. 

Ghaziuddin M., & Mountain-Kimchi K. (2004). Defining 

the intellectual profile of Asperger syndrome: 

Comparison with high-functioning autism. 

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 

34, 279–284. 

Ghaziuddin, M., Weidmer-Mikhail, F., & Ghazziuddin, 

N. (1998). Comorbidity of Asperger syndrome: 

A preliminary report. Journal of Intellectual 

Disability Research, 42, 279–283. 

Gillberg, C. (1985). Asperger syndrome in 23 Swedish 

children. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 

31, 520–531. 

Gillberg, I. C., & Gillberg, C. (1989). Asperger syndrome—Some 

epidemiological considerations: A 

research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 

30, 631–638. 

Kasari, C., & Rotheram-Fuller, E. (2005). Current 

trends in psychological research on children with 

high-functioning autism and Asperger disorder. 

Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 18, 497–501. 

Khouzam, H. R., El-Gabalawi, F., Pirwani, N., & 

Priest, F. (2004). Asperger’s disorder: A review of 

its diagnosis and treatment. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 

45, 184–191.

Koyama, T., Tachimori, H., Osada, H., Takeda, T., 

& Kurita, H. (2007). Cognitive and symptom profiles 

in Asperger’s syndrome and high-functioning 

autism. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 61, 

99–104. 

Lee, H. J., & Park, H. R. (2007). Integrate review of 

literature on the adaptive behavior of individuals 

with Asperger Syndrome. Remedial and Special Education, 

28, 132–139. 

Myles, B. S., Barnhill, G. P., Hagiwara, T., Griswold, 

D. E., & Simpson, R. L. (2001). A synthesis of 

studies on the intellectual, academic, social/emotional 

and sensory characteristics of children and 

youth with Asperger Syndrome. Education and 

Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental 


Myles, B. S., Bock, S. J., & Simpson, R. L. (2000). 

Asperger Syndrome Diagnostic Scale. Austin, TX: Pro- 

Ed. 

Myles, B. S., Cook, K. T., Miller, N. F., Rinner, L., & 

Robbins, L. A. (2000). Asperger Syndrome and sensory 

issue: Practical solutions for making sense of the 

world. Shawnee Mission, KS: Autism Asperger 

Publishing Company. 

Myles, B. S., Hagiwara, T., Carlson, J. K., & Simpson, 

R. L. (1999). Family Demographic Profile. Unpublished 

manuscript. 

Myles, B. S., Hagiwara, T., Dunn, W., Rinner, L., 

Reese, M., Huggins, A., Becker, S. (2004). Sensory 

issues in children with Asperger syndrome and 

autism. Education and Training in Developmental 


Myles, B. S., & Simpson, R. L. (2001). Asperger syndrome: 

A guide for educators and practitioners (2 nd 

ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. 

Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (1992). Behavior 

Assessment System for Children. Circle Pines, MN: 

American Guidance Services. 

Rothbart, M. K. (2006). Early Adolescent Temperament 

Questionnaire (EATQ-R). Retrieved November 12, 

2006, from http://www.bowdoin.edu/sputnam/ 

rothbart-temperament-questionnaires/instrumentdescriptions/early-adolescent-temperament.html 

Ryan, R. M. (1992). Treatment resistant chronic 

mental illness: Is it Asperger’s syndrome: Hospital 

and Community Psychiatry, 43, 807–811. 

Shore, S. (2003). Beyond the wall: Personal experiences 

with autism and Asperger Syndrome (2 nd ed.). Shawnee 

Mission, KS: Autism Asperger Publishing 

Company. 

Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1984). 

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: Interview edition 

survey form manual. Circle Pines, MN: American 

Guidance Service. 

Szatmari, P., Bremner, R., & Nagy, J. (1989). Asperger’s 

syndrome and autism: Comparison of early 

history and outcome. Developmental Medicine and 

Child Neurology, 31, 709–720. 

Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for 

Children—Third Edition. New York: Psychological 

Corp. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. 

Willey, L. H. (1999). Pretending to be normal. London, 

England: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, Ltd. 

Williams, K. (2001). Understanding the student 

with Asperger Syndrome: Guideline for teachers. 

Intervention in School and Clinic, 36, 287–292. 

Wing, L. (1981). Asperger’s syndrome: A clinical 

account. Psychological Medicine, 11, 115–129. 

Woodbury-Smith, M., Klin, A., & Volkmar, F. 

(2005). Asperger’s syndrome: A comparison of 

clinical diagnoses and those made according to 

the ICD-10 and DSM-IV. Journal of Autism and 

Developmental Disorders, 35, 235–240. 

World Health Organization. (1992). The ICD-10 classification 

of mental and behavioral disorders: Clinical 

descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: 

Author.

A Large-Scale Study of the Characteristics of Asperger Syndrome

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?