Assessment & Research

Quantitative autism traits in first degree relatives: evidence for the broader autism phenotype in fathers, but not in mothers and siblings.

De la Marche et al. (2012) · Autism : the international journal of research and practice 2012
★ The Verdict

Fathers of autistic children score slightly higher on autism traits, but mothers and siblings do not, so choose your family screening tools wisely.

✓ Read this if BCBAs running parent training or sibling support groups in clinic or school settings.
✗ Skip if Practitioners who only work one-to-one with the diagnosed child and never see family members.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

De la Marche et al. (2012) gave the Social Responsiveness Scale to parents and brothers and sisters of autistic children. They compared the scores to people from the general population. The goal was to see if autism traits show up in relatives, not just the diagnosed child.

02

What they found

Only fathers scored higher than controls. Mothers and siblings looked the same as the general public on the SRS. The mild elevation in dads fits the idea of a 'broader autism phenotype' that can run in families.

03

How this fits with other research

Wetterneck et al. (2006) also saw father-specific problems: dads of autistic kids were worse at reading facial emotions. The two studies line up and show fathers may carry subtle social-cognitive differences.

Tu et al. (2016) took the same SRS into typical teens and linked high scores to real brain differences. That backs the scale as a valid measure of autism traits, not just family stress.

Lovell et al. (2016) and Gold (1993) seem to disagree about siblings. They found more depression in brothers and sisters, while Wouter saw no SRS elevation. The difference is the tool: SRS asks about autism traits, depression scales ask about mood. Siblings may feel emotional strain without showing autism-like behaviors.

04

Why it matters

When you score an SRS in parent training, expect fathers to land a bit higher. Do not over-interpret a mildly elevated dad score as a second diagnosis. For siblings, skip the SRS as a risk screener; use depression or anxiety tools instead. Tailor your family support: dads may need social coaching, siblings may need emotional check-ins.

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

If you give the SRS to parents, flag dad scores around the mild range and follow up with social-skills coaching instead of assuming another diagnosis.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
quasi experimental
Sample size
117
Population
not specified
Finding
null
Magnitude
negligible

03Original abstract

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) symptoms are present in unaffected relatives and individuals from the general population. Results are inconclusive, however, on whether unaffected relatives have higher levels of quantitative autism traits (QAT) or not. This might be due to differences in research populations, because behavioral data and molecular genetic research suggest that the genetic etiology of ASD is different in multiplex and simplex families. We compared 117 unaffected siblings and 276 parents of at least one child with ASD with 280 children and 595 adults from the general population on the presence of QAT using the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS). Mean SRS scores for siblings, control children, parents and control adults were 25.4, 26.6, 33.7 and 32.9. Fathers of children with ASD showed significantly higher levels of QAT than controls, but siblings and mothers did not. We could not detect a statistically significant difference in SRS scores between relatives from simplex and multiplex families. These results do not support the theory of differential (genetic) etiology in multiplex and simplex families and suggest that a carried genetic risk is generally not expressed phenotypically in most relatives, except in fathers.

Autism : the international journal of research and practice, 2012 · doi:10.1177/1362361311421776