An examination of the phenomenology and the reliability of ratings of compulsive behavior in autism.

Staff at a residential center watched 17 autistic adults every day.

They filled out two new rating sheets that list common compulsive acts.

The same staff repeated the sheets two weeks later so the team could check if scores stayed the same.

Both new scales showed solid test-retest and inter-rater reliability.

In plain words, different staff gave about the same score, and scores did not jump around from week to week.

One year earlier, Sturmey (1994) warned that most behavior checklists for "aberrant" acts had shaky reliability. The 1995 study answers that call by giving scales that actually hold steady.

Maddox et al. (2015) found that self-report ASD screens in outpatient adults miss a lot of cases. Their negative result looks like a clash, but it isn’t: they asked the clients to rate themselves, while A et al. asked trained staff to rate what they saw. Staff observers can give more stable data when clients have limited self-insight.

Nicholson et al. (2006) tested the QABF and also saw only modest inter-rater agreement for low-rate behaviors. The 1995 compulsive scales did better, likely because the items are simpler and the staff knew the adults well.

You now have two free, staff-friendly scales that reliably track repetitive, compulsive topographies in adults with autism. Use them to spot target behaviors, show change during treatment, and write solid goals for IHP or BSP plans.