Internal Consistency of Self-report Anxiety Measures for Autistic Adults Without Intellectual Disabilities: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Laura Stanford, Alice Welham, Siânna Banks, Andrew Surtees

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Laura StanfordCentre for Applied Psychology, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Alice WelhamCentre for Applied Psychology, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Siânna BanksCentre for Applied Psychology, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Andrew SurteesBirmingham and Solihull Mental Health Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK. A.Surtees@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5307-9723

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAnxiety prevalence is higher for autistic adults than the general population, yet there is no consensus on whether self-report questionnaires provide internally consistent measurements. This review aimed to identify and narratively compare the internal consistency of all available self-report anxiety measures for autistic adults, and meta-analyse the measures with enough studies.

methodsSix databases were searched to identify relevant literature. After eligibility criteria were applied, 27 articles were retained. Included papers were evaluated for risk of bias using bespoke criteria.

resultsThe Generalised Anxiety Disorder seven-item questionnaire, Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, and Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (21-item - anxiety subscale [DASS-21]) were meta-analysed as they were examined in sufficient numbers of studies. Pooled Cronbach's of 0.91 (CI 0.91-0.92), 0.97 (0.96-0.97), and 0.87 (0.83-0.92), respectively, were identified. Acceptable heterogeneity was found for all measures except the DASS-21 (I

conclusionPublished data suggest self-report anxiety measures have excellent internal consistency when completed by autistic adults. Future studies should explore complementary psychometric properties and include autistic samples with intellectual disabilities to replicate the findings.

Indexed as

AnxietyAutismInternal consistencyMeta-analysisSelf-report questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID41854992

DOI10.1080/19315864.2021.1992549

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.