Limb Evolvability in Pan Troglodytes

In primates, trait covariance is common among limb segments and bony structures. Trait covariance signifies the changes in one trait that may influence the development and/or evolution of another trait. Evolvability - or the ability for a trait to respond to evolutionary pressures - is affected by trait covariance. Covarying traits may limit a trait’s ability to respond to selective pressures, and that traits with high covariance have high integration and low evolvability. In this study, we estimate measures of evolvability (evolvability, responsibility, integration, and autonomy) of limb segments of common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). We hypothesize that the covariance between the humerus, femur, and tibia will follow established patterns for great apes and that the humerus will be less integrated than the femur or tibia. After controlling for sex, results support our hypothesis: that the covariance pattern is as expected and that the humerus is less integrated (and therefore less evolvable) than the bones of the lower limb

The Adult Repetitive Behaviours Questionnaire-2 (RBQ-2A): A Self-Report Measure of Restricted and Repetitive Behaviours

In two studies we developed and tested a new self-report measure of restricted and repetitive behaviours (RRB) suitable for adults. In Study 1, The Repetitive Behaviours Questionnaire-2 for adults (RBQ-2A) was completed by a sample of 163 neurotypical adults. Principal components analysis revealed two components: Repetitive Motor Behaviours and Insistence on Sameness. In Study 2, the mean RBQ-2A scores of a group of adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD; N = 29) were compared to an adult neurotypical group (N = 37). The ASD sample had significantly higher total and subscale scores. These results indicate that the RBQ-2A has utility as a self-report questionnaire measure of RRBs suitable for adults, with potential clinical application

Comparison of Healthcare Experiences in Autistic and Non-Autistic Adults: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey Facilitated by an Academic-Community Partnership

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the healthcare experiences of adults on the autism spectrum. Moreover, autistic adults have rarely been included as partners in autism research. OBJECTIVE: To compare the healthcare experiences of autistic and non-autistic adults via an online survey. METHODS: We used a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to adapt survey instruments to be accessible to autistic adults and to conduct an online cross-sectional survey. We assessed preliminary psychometric data on the adapted scales. We used multivariate analyses to compare healthcare experiences of autistic and non-autistic participants. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-seven participants completed the survey (209 autistic, 228 non-autistic). All adapted scales had good to excellent internal consistency reliability (alpha 0.82–0.92) and strong construct validity. In multivariate analyses, after adjustment for demographic characteristics, health insurance, and overall health status, autistic adults reported lower satisfaction with patient-provider communication (beta coefficient −1.9, CI −2.9 to −0.9), general healthcare self-efficacy (beta coefficient −11.9, CI −14.0 to −8.6), and chronic condition self-efficacy (beta coefficient −4.5, CI −7.5 to −1.6); higher odds of unmet healthcare needs related to physical health (OR 1.9 CI 1.1–3.4), mental health (OR 2.2, CI 1.3–3.7), and prescription medications (OR 2.8, CI 2.2–7.5); lower self-reported rates of tetanus vaccination (OR 0.5, CI 0.3–0.9) and Papanicolaou smears (OR 0.5, CI 0.2–0.9); and greater odds of using the emergency department (OR 2.1, CI 1.8–3.8). CONCLUSION: A CBPR approach may facilitate the inclusion of people with disabilities in research by increasing researchers’ ability to create accessible data collection instruments. Autistic adults who use the Internet report experiencing significant healthcare disparities. Efforts are needed to improve the healthcare of autistic individuals, including individuals who may be potentially perceived as having fewer disability-related needs