Phenotypical divergence between self-reported and clinically ascertained autism.

Abstract

While allowing for rapid recruitment of large samples, online psychiatric and neurodevelopmental research relies heavily on participants' self-report of neuropsychiatric symptoms, foregoing the rigorous clinical characterization of laboratory settings. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) research is one example where the clinical validity of such an approach remains elusive. Here, we compared participants characterized online via self-reports against in-person participants evaluated by clinicians. Despite having comparable self-reported autism symptoms, the online high-trait group reported significantly more social anxiety and avoidant behavior than in-person ASD subjects. Within the in-person sample, there was no relationship between self-rated and clinician-rated autism symptoms, suggesting these approaches may capture different aspects of ASD. The online high-trait and in-person ASD participants also differed in their behavior in well-validated social decision-making tasks: the in-person group perceived having less social control and acted less affiliative towards virtual characters. Our study aimed to draw comparisons at three levels: methodological platform (online versus in-person), symptom measurement (self- versus clinician-report), and social behavior. We identified a lack of agreement between self- and clinician-rated measures of symptoms and divergent social tendencies in groups ascertained by each method, highlighting the need for differentiation between in-person versus online samples in autism research.