Exploratory Factor Analysis of SRS-2 Teacher Ratings for Youth with ASD.

Teachers filled out the SRS-2 for students with autism who need lots of daily help. The team ran a factor analysis to see if the test still works for these lower-skilled youth.

They wanted to know if teacher scores group into the same four areas the test claims to measure.

The four-factor model held up. Teacher answers lined up well with the test’s four social domains.

Most students scored above the clinical cut-off, so the tool still flags real social trouble in this group.

Cohn et al. (2007) did the same math on the older CARS teacher form and also found four factors. Their work is an earlier step, showing the idea works across scales.

Gomez et al. (2019) trimmed the AQ-Child from five factors to four in an ADHD sample. Both studies say four beats five, but Rapson used parents and a different diagnosis.

Faja et al. (2023) compared eight social tools and kept SRS-2 on the short list for telling ASD from typical kids. That big head-to-head backs up the choice you already make.

You can trust the SRS-2 teacher form even when your client has low language or daily-living skills. No need to hunt for a new scale; the same four-factor snapshot works. Use it to set social-skills goals and show parents clear numbers from school.