The study is four pages long and is basically a survey with a couple different percentages of answers (autistic vs allistic) shown for the questions.
The neat part I noticed was the difference between men and women was a way bigger effect on the question “do you ever view objects as having gender” than the 'tism did.
I mean, apart from it being based on a subjective questionnaire - I see that they used t test and chi square and some of the results were significant, but when you look at the table, very often the percentages don’t vary or vary very little. Ok, a group had 14% vs 15% of a trait and the difference is significant, but when you take a step back you got to be careful with overinterpretation. To me, the table was all over the place. And to be fair, 80 ND and 250 NT aren’t exactly a huge sample size either. All in all, while an interesting paper, I think there are severe limitations to its significance and definitely needs further (and more profound) analysis.
But my being said, I am not from psychology studies, so maybe such approaches and numbers are more common? I’m from biomedical sciences and thus this reads more like a bachelor’s thesis.
The study is four pages long and is basically a survey with a couple different percentages of answers (autistic vs allistic) shown for the questions.
The neat part I noticed was the difference between men and women was a way bigger effect on the question “do you ever view objects as having gender” than the 'tism did.
I mean, apart from it being based on a subjective questionnaire - I see that they used t test and chi square and some of the results were significant, but when you look at the table, very often the percentages don’t vary or vary very little. Ok, a group had 14% vs 15% of a trait and the difference is significant, but when you take a step back you got to be careful with overinterpretation. To me, the table was all over the place. And to be fair, 80 ND and 250 NT aren’t exactly a huge sample size either. All in all, while an interesting paper, I think there are severe limitations to its significance and definitely needs further (and more profound) analysis.
But my being said, I am not from psychology studies, so maybe such approaches and numbers are more common? I’m from biomedical sciences and thus this reads more like a bachelor’s thesis.