Assessment & Research

Embedded Figures Test Performance in the Broader Autism Phenotype: A Meta-analysis.

Cribb et al. (2016) · Journal of autism and developmental disorders 2016
★ The Verdict

Superior hidden-shape spotting only surfaces when you compare adults with very high versus very low autistic traits.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who run social-cognition assessments or train staff on neuro-diversity profiles.
✗ Skip if Clinicians looking only for direct skill-building interventions with diagnosed children.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

The team pooled every paper that gave neurotypical adults the Embedded Figures Test. This test hides a simple shape inside a busy picture. People who spot the shape fast show a 'local bias' — they see tiny details before the big scene.

They also gathered each adult’s Autism-Spectrum Quotient score. Then they asked: do people with higher autistic traits finish the hidden-shape task faster? They compared two ways of answering: looking at the full spread of scores, or only comparing the highest and lowest groups.

02

What they found

Across many studies, the advantage showed up only when the top AQ group was stacked against the bottom group. Continuous scatterplots looked flat. The edge is real, but you have to slice the data wide to see it.

03

How this fits with other research

Cantio et al. (2016) seems to disagree. In people with ASD they found a local bias was rare and added no diagnostic value. The key difference: Cathriona studied diagnosed kids using many tasks; the meta-analysis studied subtle traits in average adults using one task. Both can be true — local bias matters for research groups, not clinic lists.

Green et al. (2020) extend the idea. They showed that relatives who fail faux-pas stories have weak language-based executive skills. Together the papers build a chain: subtle autistic traits → specific EF style → different test profiles.

Ko et al. (2024) push the link younger. Preschoolers with ASD already show large EF gaps. The meta-analysis shows the same cognitive style lives quietly in typical adults; the preschool study shows it can grow into clinical need.

04

Why it matters

When you test for cognitive style, pick your comparison wisely. A mild AQ rise in one client may not predict blazing EFT speed, but the top-versus-bottom split can still guide research matching. Also, remember that fast hidden-shape finding is part of the broader autism phenotype — it is not unique to diagnosed ASD. Use this insight when explaining neuro-diversity profiles to staff or families, and keep language-based EF on your intervention radar if social reasoning is shaky.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Graph your client’s AQ scores in extremes, not just averages, before deciding if an EF-style task fits their assessment plan.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
meta analysis
Population
neurotypical
Finding
not reported

03Original abstract

People with autism show superior performance to controls on the Embedded Figures Test (EFT). However, studies examining the relationship between autistic-like traits and EFT performance in neurotypical individuals have yielded inconsistent findings. To examine the inconsistency, a meta-analysis was conducted of studies that (a) compared high and low Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ) groups, and (b) treated AQ as a continuous variable. Outcomes are consistent with superior visual search forming part of the broader autism phenotype, but in existing literature, this is evident only when comparing extreme groups. Reanalysis of data from previous studies suggests findings are unlikely to be driven by a small number of high scorers. Monte Carlo simulations are used to illustrate the effect of methodological differences on results.

Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2016 · doi:10.1007/s10803-016-2832-3