A Brief Assessment to Identify Sensitivity to a Conversational Partner’s Interest

Kronfli et al. built a one-hour test that spots which conversational boredom cues a person with autism misses. They ran short, staged chats where the partner suddenly looked away, gave one-word answers, or checked their phone. Each participant cycled through these mini-scenes while the team tracked when the participant kept talking anyway.

The study used single-case logic: every client got their own set of conditions to find the exact cue that tripped them up.

All participants kept talking even when clear I'm-not-interested signals were shown. The quick probe let the team write a one-page profile for each client. The profile listed the specific cues the client did not notice, such as lack of eye contact or shortened replies.

Cunningham (2012) warned that no single social tool works for every age. Kronfli's chat probe fills that gap for fluent speakers who outgrow toddler measures like the ESCS used by Geurts et al. (2008).

Bong et al. (2021) squeezed toddler screening into 25 minutes with caregiver interviews and play. Kronfli mirrors that speed but targets older clients and uses live conversation instead of play or interviews.

Ponnet et al. (2008) showed young adults with ASD read minds worse in loose chats. Kronfli's structured probe turns that weakness into a testable item: if structure helps, the brief assessment should highlight who still misses cues even when the setup is tight.

You now have a fast way to write precise social goals. Run the probe, list the missed cues, then teach the client to spot those exact behaviors. Therapy becomes laser-focused instead of broad social skills training.