Baron Cohen et al (Eyes test)

Question 1

AIM:

Answer 1

🔷 The main aim of this research was to investigate whether an improved ‘revised’ version of the Eyes test would show a clear impairment in a group of adults with ASD to assess its effectiveness.

🔷 The researchers also wanted to test whether there was an association between performance on the revised Eyes test and measures of traits of ASD, and to investigate whether there were sex differences in those without ASD on this task..

They were testing five hypotheses:

🔹Participants with ASD will score significantly lower scores on the revised Eyes test than the control group.

🔹Participants with ASD will score significantly higher on the Autism Spectrum Quotient Test (AQ) measure than the control group.

🔹Females in the ‘normal’ groups (Groups 2 and 3) will score higher on the Eyes test than males in those groups.

🔹Males in the ‘normal’ group (Group 3) would score higher on the AQ measure than females.

🔹Scores on the AQ and the Eyes test would be negatively correlated.

Question 2

BACKGROUND:

Question 3

SAMPLE:

Answer 3

🔷 The study used four groups of participants. These differed in several ways (see Table 3.4). Group 1 consisted of all males and groups 2 and 3 including both males and females.

🔷 Group 1: AS/HFA

The group comprised 15 adult males with AS or HFA with a mean IQ score of 115 and mean age of 29.7 years. The sample was self-selecting through adverts in the Autistic Society magazine and support groups and all had been diagnosed in specialist centres using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) or International Classification of Disorders (ICD) criteria.

🔷 Group 2: Adult comparison group

The group comprised ‘normal’ adults, who did not have a diagnosis of AS/HFA. They were selected from adult community and education classes in Exeter (UK) and public library users in Cambridge (UK) with a mean age of 46.5 years.

🔷 Group 3: Student comparison group

The group comprised ‘normal’ students, who did have a diagnosis of AS/HFA, from the University of Cambridge with a mean age of 20.8 years. Cambridge is a highly selective university so these students are not representative of the general population.

🔷 Group 4: IQ Matched group

The group comprised 14 1Q matched participants with those in the AS/HFA group with a mean age of 28 years and a mean IQ score of 116. These participants were randomly selected from the general population.

Question 4

PROCEDURE: 1

Question 5

PROCEDURE: 2

Question 6

PROCEDURE: 3

Question 7

RESEARCH METHOD:

Question 8

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:

Question 9

RESULTS: 1

Question 10

RESULTS: 2

Question 11

CONCLUSION:

Question 12

EVALUATION: (Strengths)

Answer 12

🔷 High generalizability -
The sample size overall was large of a total of 254 participants, including both males and females of various ages, and various IQ levels, which makes the findings of the study generalizable to a wider population

🔷 High Reliability –
The issues of the original eyes test were overcome in the revised version for example by providing a glossary in case participants were unsure of the meanings of some of the options, reducing the chances of participants ‘guessing’ the correct answer, in turn increasing the validity of the findings.

Question 13

EVALUATION: (weaknesses)

Answer 13

🔷 Low validity -
The study was a self report measure, and as a result, there is always a possibility that participants may give socially desirable or untruthful responses, such as on the AQ test, which may lower the validity of the findings

🔷 Low Ecological Validity –
The study was a lab experiment and had high levels of controls, which reduces the ecological validity, as in an everyday situation, a person’s eyes would not be static or be shown in isolation from the rest of their face, there are other social cues by which one can read emotion such as tone of voice, facial expressions and body language which reduces mundane realism of the study.

Question 14

EVALUATION: (ethical issues)

Answer 14

🔷 As all participants were able to give informed consent and their data was kept confidential, few ethical issues were raised within the study itself.

🔺However, ethical issues could arise from the findings. Evidence such as this, which identifies ‘normal’ performance of control groups and ‘impaired’ performance of the AS/HFA group could be seen as representing neurodiverse groups in a negative way.

🔷 Alternatively, by identifying such differences, this research has the capacity to provide both an understanding of the nature of the experience of people with ASD and, therefore, the potential for greater understanding in society and potentially in situations such as school or the workplace. This would be an ethical strength.