30356
Mapping the Research Domain Criteria Social Communication Sub-Constructs to the Social Responsiveness Scale
Objectives: To derive estimations of the RDoC social constructs from the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS) and explore their utility in capturing individual patterns of strengths and weaknesses across the identified factors in a large, clinically diverse sample.
Methods: Data from six distinct databases were combined resulting in total N= 27953 (Mage= 9.55, SD= 3.79; 71.7% male). The sample comprised of individuals with ASD (60%), other neurodevelopmental and neuropsychiatric disorders (NDD/NPD; 6.2%) and normative development (33.8%). Variable-centered (Confirmatory Factor Analysis [CFA] and Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling [ESEM]) and person-centered (Latent Profile Analysis [LPA]) approaches were conducted using individual SRS items. CFA and ESEM explored the following models: (1) a 1-factor model; (2) a 3-factor model with separate Attachment and Affiliation (AA), Social Communication (SC), and Understanding of Mental States (UMS) factors, (3) a 4-factor model where SC was further split into Production of Facial (PFC) and Non-Facial (PNFC) communication, and (4) a bi-factor model with general social processes factor and 4 specific AA, PNFC, PFC, and UMS factors.
Results: The 1-factor solution showed a poor fit. The 3-factor solution had adequate fit (comparative fit index [CFI]= .952, Tucker Lewis index [TLI]= .937, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA]= .054), however, 4-factor solution had superior fit (CFI= .973, TLI= .961, RMSEA= .042). Finally, the bi-factor model with general and specific AA, PNFC, PFC and UMS factors provided the best fit (CFI= .984, TLI= .975, RMSEA= .034). The identified factors were then utilized in the LPA that suggested a 5-profile solution (based on the BIC and the Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test) for the clinical sample (ASD and NDD/NPD). Identified profiles were distinguished in terms of the distinct pattern of peaks and troughs across AA, PNFC, PFC and UMS constructs, rather than being defined only by general severity gradient.
Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study examining estimations of the RDoC social constructs from the existing measures. Our findings show promise for capturing important RDoC social constructs using the SRS and the utility of the identified factors in capturing clinically meaningful subgroups.