The validity and reliability of the Wing Subgroups Questionnaire.
A one-page teacher checklist can reliably sort kids with autism into social subtypes and guide your next teaching move.
01Research in Context
What this study did
O'Brien (1996) tested a short teacher checklist called the Wing Subgroups Questionnaire. It sorts kids with autism into three social styles: aloof, passive, or active-but-odd.
Fifty-six British special-ed teachers rated twice. The team checked if the same teacher gave the same score twice and if two teachers agreed on the same child.
What they found
The scales held together. Alpha was 0.80 for aloof and 0.78 for active-but-odd. Two teachers agreed 85 % of the time.
Each subtype also lined up with real classroom skills. Aloof kids spoke less. Active-but-odd kids showed odd gestures. The tool did what it promised.
How this fits with other research
Dutt et al. (2019) later used Rasch math to build the ABAIT for teachers. Both papers prove teacher scales can be tight if items are short and clear.
Chiviacowsky et al. (2013) found poor item-level fit on the MAS and QABF. Their warning reminds us the WSQ works only because it keeps items few and tightly themed.
Lancioni et al. (2008) showed visual FA graphs are shaky. O'Brien (1996) gives the opposite news: a quick checklist can be reliable. Together they say, "Use numbers, not just your eyes."
Why it matters
You can hand the one-page WSQ to a teacher, get a subtype in five minutes, and plan social-skills groups that match the style. No extra training, no long interview.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Print the WSQ, ask the teacher to tick the best fit for each student, then group aloof kids for joint-attention drills and active-but-odd kids for conversation-practice tables.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This study examined the validity and the internal and interrater reliability of the Wing Subgroups Questionnaire (WSQ), an assessment that classifies children with autism into one of three subtypes. Subjects were 42 students enrolled in multihandicapped special education classrooms. Results indicated that items pertaining to the active-but-odd and the aloof subtypes, and to typical development, demonstrated good consistency, whereas passive subtype items showed moderate consistency. Interrater reliability was good for all subtypes utilizing intraclass correlations, but it was moderate with regard to percentage agreement of subtype diagnosis. Interscale correlations were mostly low or negative, suggesting that the subtype scales are measuring distinct constructs. Significant differences among the subtypes were found on three measures of communication, three measures of social interaction, two measures of stereotypic behavior, and one measure of temper/aggression.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 1996 · doi:10.1007/BF02172477