The AQ as originally defined by Baron-Cohen et al (2001) has come under scrutiny in the intervening years. A more recent review by English et al (2020) found that out of 10 alternative definitions, the most statistically valid was a 3-factor model using a subset of the original questions, as proposed by Russell-Smith et al (2011). Further, the questions should be scored using the 4-point Likert scale as posed instead of binarized into "autism-like or not" 1s and 0s. Finally, they suggest that the subscales should be interpreted individually, and not aggregated into a single "total AQ score".
This update implements this new method of scoring the AQ, now reporting results for all three subscales individually.
The AQ as originally defined by Baron-Cohen et al (2001) has come under scrutiny in the intervening years. A more recent review by English et al (2020) found that out of 10 alternative definitions, the most statistically valid was a 3-factor model using a subset of the original questions, as proposed by Russell-Smith et al (2011). Further, the questions should be scored using the 4-point Likert scale as posed instead of binarized into "autism-like or not" 1s and 0s. Finally, they suggest that the subscales should be interpreted individually, and not aggregated into a single "total AQ score".
This update implements this new method of scoring the AQ, now reporting results for all three subscales individually.