Sex and discipline differences in empathising, systemising and autistic symptomatology: evidence from a student population.

Galuska et al. (2006) gave college students two short checklists. One asked about empathy. The other asked about systemizing.

The team wanted to see if men and women scored differently. They also checked if high scores on one list matched high scores on the other.

Women rated themselves more empathic. Men rated themselves higher on systemizing. This part looked like past studies.

But the two checklists did not track together. A student could score high on both, low on both, or any mix. The tools did not behave as a single ruler.

Li et al. (2015) later tested Dutch versions of the same checklists. They found good reliability and clear factors. Their work supersedes the 2006 warning. The checklists can work when translated and refined.

Roane et al. (2001) had already shown the Autism-Spectrum Quotient cleanly splits groups. That success set the bar high. Galuska et al. (2006) showed the EQ and SQ are trickier to interpret in typical students.

Smees et al. (2025) carried the idea forward with children. They broke child empathy into four clear parts. This extends the line of work and shows the empathy piece can be saved with better items.

If you screen college-age clients for social programs, treat single EQ or SQ scores as rough notes, not verdicts. Pair them with direct skill probes like role-play or task analysis. Update your toolkit with the Dutch or child refinements when you need firmer numbers.