Can standard measures identify subclinical markers of autism?

The team gave classic autism tests to siblings of diagnosed children. They wanted to see if the tests could spot hidden thinking problems in kids who had no diagnosis.

They used two kinds of tasks. One checked executive function—skills like planning and shifting focus. The other checked theory of mind—understanding what others think.

Executive-function tasks showed small but real group differences. The authors said this might be a 'subclinical marker' of autism risk.

Theory-of-mind tasks found nothing. The tools were too easy or too blunt to pick up subtle social-cognitive gaps.

Ko et al. (2024) later showed the same kind of executive gaps explain over half of autism-symptom variance in preschoolers. Their newer BRIEF-P scale caught what the 1993 kit missed.

Green et al. (2020) sharpened the picture. They found language-based executive skills, not general social training, predict who fails advanced faux-pas tests in the broader autism phenotype. That backs the 1993 hunch that standard ToM tasks lack sensitivity.

Kouklari et al. (2018) ran direct EF tests on 8- to 12-year-olds. Working memory predicted theory-of-mind scores, but EF did not predict everyday social talk. Together the studies say: use targeted EF tasks, skip broad ToM checklists.

If you test siblings or parents during an intake, swap out old false-belief stories for brief executive-function probes like the BRIEF-P or a quick card-sort. A low score won't give a diagnosis, but it flags families who may need closer developmental watch or parent coaching on planning and flexibility skills.