View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The How Rather than the What: A Qualitative Analysis of Modalities and Caregiver Descriptions of Special Interests in Autistic Youth

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The How Rather than the What: A Qualitative Analysis of Modalities and Caregiver Descriptions of Special Interests in Autistic Youth
Language: English
Authors: Cynthia E. Brown (ORCID 0000-0001-5514-080X), Tal Collins, Riley K. Foy, Kirsten E. Bonish, Taylor E. Ramsey, Kerri P. Nowell, Courtney J. Bernardin, Stephen M. Kanne
Source: Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2025 55(11):3998-4008.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Child Caregivers, Caregiver Attitudes, Autism Spectrum Disorders, Youth, Interests, Adjustment (to Environment), Interest Inventories, Persistence, Creativity, Information Seeking, Memorization, Attachment Behavior
DOI: 10.1007/s10803-024-06501-4
ISSN: 0162-3257
1573-3432
Abstract: Nearly all autistic youth have special interests (SIs), which are associated with many benefits and challenges. Most research on SIs has focused on the subject matter of SIs, with less focus on understanding how youth engage in their SIs. We conducted a qualitative study using inductive content analysis (ICA) to examine: (1) The modalities youth use to engage in their SIs, (2) the degree to which such modalities are described by caregivers as adaptive or maladaptive, and (3) the extent to which the SIs themselves are described by caregivers positively or negatively. We coded responses from 1922 caregivers of autistic youths who completed an online version of the Special Interests Survey, a caregiver-report measure of SIs. Responses to open-ended questions on the SIS, wherein caregivers describe the specific interest within the endorsed SI category, were used as data for the ICA. Frequencies of the codes were derived from cross-tabulation data. The ICA yielded eight modalities: "perseverating, creating, information-seeking, memorizing, collecting, attachment, sensory-seeking," and "self-soothing." "Perseverating, collecting," and "attachment" were described as maladaptive and negatively by caregivers, whereas "creating" and "information-seeking" were described as adaptive. SIs with the greatest proportion of positive and negative descriptions were Plants and Objects, respectively. These findings suggest that SIs -- and the degree to which they are described as beneficial or problematic -- may be associated with modality and the subject matter. Considering how autistic individuals engage in SIs has implications for clinical work and future research in this area.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1492911
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGzyfa5UlP3rm33Hqpgg75BAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAlFmqOc0yRjYYo6VAIBEICBmyLfjlqarAmFjT6Gr6m3XiXclO8fSUiqaJ7WBX4iBK2gSq1GKJ-kdexESOCvurI92ngdNmXYEr-rREAR5Inm7ZeS43aprDDPHojT6h3u7AAZLZaZddZlXGrb2urb137Hq_Qi5wtqEWlg674BrirVlsNaRTxjXu_MyN_os9Q0XM121afskwQ1CQnE5sUEyHQP_aLhlLomlQ0doMNb
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0189005204;aut01nov.25;2025Nov03.05:02;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0189005204-1">The How Rather than the What: A Qualitative Analysis of Modalities and Caregiver Descriptions of Special Interests in Autistic Youth </title> <p>Nearly all autistic youth have special interests (SIs), which are associated with many benefits and challenges. Most research on SIs has focused on the subject matter of SIs, with less focus on understanding how youth engage in their SIs. We conducted a qualitative study using inductive content analysis (ICA) to examine: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) The modalities youth use to engage in their SIs, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) the degree to which such modalities are described by caregivers as adaptive or maladaptive, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) the extent to which the SIs themselves are described by caregivers positively or negatively. We coded responses from 1922 caregivers of autistic youths who completed an online version of the Special Interests Survey, a caregiver-report measure of SIs. Responses to open-ended questions on the SIS, wherein caregivers describe the specific interest within the endorsed SI category, were used as data for the ICA. Frequencies of the codes were derived from cross-tabulation data. The ICA yielded eight modalities: perseverating, creating, information-seeking, memorizing, collecting, attachment, sensory-seeking, and self-soothing. Perseverating, collecting, and attachment were described as maladaptive and negatively by caregivers, whereas creating and information-seeking were described as adaptive. SIs with the greatest proportion of positive and negative descriptions were Plants and Objects, respectively. These findings suggest that SIs - and the degree to which they are described as beneficial or problematic - may be associated with modality and the subject matter. Considering how autistic individuals engage in SIs has implications for clinical work and future research in this area.</p> <p>Keywords: Special interests; Autism; Qualitative analysis</p> <p>Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-024-06501-4.</p> <p>Autism is a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by difficulties with social communication and engagement in repetitive, restrictive behaviors (RRBs) as specified in the <emph>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders</emph> (5th ed., text rev.; <emph>DSM-5-TR</emph>; American Psychiatric Association, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>]). The current prevalence rate for autism among children and adolescents in the United States is 1 in 36 (Maenner et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref5">22</reflink>]). Autistic individuals[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref6">1</reflink>] often have interests that are remarkable by virtue of the interest's intensity (e.g., time devoted to the interests, having strong emotions about the interest) or the unusualness of the interest compared to common interests of non-autistic individuals (e.g., an interest in escalators versus sports). These interests (hereafter "special interests" or SIs), also described as "circumscribed interests" or "unusual preoccupations," are considered to be a type of RRB (American Psychiatric Association, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>]). SIs vary widely based on their content (i.e., the topic or nature of the interest) and whether the interest is associated with impairment. Indeed, SIs have been associated with various challenges (e.g., emotion dysregulation and socialization difficulties; Klin et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref8">16</reflink>]; Turner-Brown et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref9">30</reflink>]) and many benefits (e.g., a sense of well-being, opportunities for social interaction, and vocational or career opportunities; Grove et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref10">12</reflink>]; Teti et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref11">29</reflink>]). Moreover, SIs are highly prevalent among autistic youth. A recent study suggests that 98.6% of autistic youth had at least two SIs in their lifetime and that the average SI persisted for at least two years (Nowell et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref12">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Most measures of SIs focus on identifying <emph>subject matter</emph> (e.g., TV characters, attachment to particular objects) as well as the intensity or atypicality of interests relative to developmental level. For example, the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (Lord et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref13">21</reflink>]) has limited items designed to determine whether SIs are present. The few published measures of SIs include the Yale Survey of Special Interests, in which caregivers respond to open-ended questions about the youth's top interests (Klin et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref14">16</reflink>]), as well as the Cambridge University Obsessions Questionnaire (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref15">2</reflink>]) and the Interest Scale (Bodfish, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref16">3</reflink>]), which present caregivers with a checklist of interests to endorse that are categorized by subject matter. Similarly, the recently developed Special Interests Survey (SIS) includes a checklist component for assessing SIs and other scales to assess the interference and unusualness of the SIs (Nowell et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref17">23</reflink>]). These tools may include examples of qualities of an SI (e.g., an unusual or intense interest) and some examples of behaviors associated with SIs.</p> <p>Some emerging works suggest that SIs may also be conceptualized based on the <emph>modality</emph> or how individuals engage in SIs (Brown et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref18">5</reflink>]). For example, a youth may have an SI related to stop signs and may engage in this interest by drawing stop signs, taking pictures of stop signs, and watching videos about how stop signs are made. Focusing only on content can be problematic for a measure, as the subject matter may traverse several categories. For example, if a child is interested in stop signs, they may draw, paint, or take pictures of stop signs, look for stop signs in various forms of media, or read about stop signs. Parents may place this SI under focused interest in TV without recognizing the full breadth. Recent work by Uljarević et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref19">31</reflink>]), wherein SIs were categorized based on qualitative responses by caregivers of autistic youth, identified a group of interests engaged through sensory experiences (e.g., spinning objects, manipulating objects [such as through ball bouncing, opening/closing doors], olfactory [smelling] behaviors).</p> <p>Similarly, a network analysis study of SIs identified clusters of interests that were similar in terms of content (e.g., engineering, entertainment) and modality (e.g., seeking information about interests; Brown et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref20">5</reflink>]). The authors suggested that certain activities labeled as SIs (e.g., reading, collecting factual information) may better reflect how youth engage in their SIs rather than these behaviors being SIs themselves, which stands in contrast with how such activities have been classified in some interest inventories (e.g., The Interests Scale; Bodfish, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref21">3</reflink>], The Cambridge University Obsessions Questionnaire; Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref22">2</reflink>]). Thus, it is an important paradigmatic shift to strongly consider how autistic individuals <emph>engage</emph> in SIs in addition to what they are interested in.</p> <p>Understanding the subject matter and modalities of SIs has several implications for treatment and research. For example, the subject matter of an SI can be used as a positive reinforcer in interventions and can improve engagement in academic settings (Harrop et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref23">14</reflink>]; Wood, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref24">37</reflink>]). Fictional characters can also be role models for teaching social skills and prosocial behavior. Similarly, examining the modalities of SI engagement can provide important clinical information. Indeed, how a youth engages in their SI may reflect a broader range of skills and abilities than assessments may detect. Specifically, autistic youth often have low scores on domains of adaptive function and developmental coordination but may demonstrate a broader and more adaptive range of function and skills (e.g., sustained attention, planning and sequencing activities, visual motor skills) when engaging in their SI (Koenig & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref25">17</reflink>]; Winter-Messiers, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref26">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>The notion that SIs can be adaptive or provide opportunities for adaptive function runs counter to historical viewpoints of SIs. In contrast with the perspectives and experiences of autistic people (e.g., non-autistic caregivers), SIs are often described and viewed by non-autistic people as maladaptive because of challenges that are associated with SIs (e.g., social problems, emotion dysregulation, difficulty disengaging from SIs; Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref27">2</reflink>]; Koenig & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref28">17</reflink>]; Nowell et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref29">23</reflink>]; Turner-Brown et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref30">30</reflink>]). When SIs are viewed through this deficit-oriented lens and examined predominantly at the level of their subject matter, impairment is ascribed to SIs in general, with little room for delineation of which aspects of SIs may be beneficial. Examining SIs at the level of their subject matter <emph>and</emph> their modality can provide a more comprehensive and strengths-based approach to utilizing aspects of SIs for clinical purposes. Thus, the present study sought to answer the following exploratory research questions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>) What modalities do autistic youth use to engage in their SIs?, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref32">2</reflink>) To what degree are those modalities described as adaptive or maladaptive?, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>) To what degree are interests themselves described as positive or negative?</p> <p>To answer these questions, we performed a qualitative analysis to examine caregiver descriptions of SIs derived from a caregiver-report survey of SIs for autistic youth. We understand that autistic individuals and their caregivers are likely to describe and think of SIs differently. However, what caregivers say about their child's interests – and, by extension, how they may perceive ore react to those interests – can significantly impact in the lives of autistic youth and their families. For example, a study by (Larose et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref34">18</reflink>]) found that caregivers' positive descriptions of autistic children's SIs often included descriptions of wanting to foster the SI and seeing autism as a strength for the child, whereas negative descriptions of SIs accompanied narratives related to functional deficits and interference for the family. Therefore, how caregivers perceive these SIs, whether as adaptive or maladaptive, may influence whether caregivers promote or discourage them. Caregivers may also offer valuable insights into how these SIs might pose challenges or be beneficial, both from their own observations and in contrast to the perspective of the autistic individual. For youth-focused research, caregiver report also provides an accessible vantage point in describing the behaviors of autistic youth, especially for those youth who may struggle to describe or reflect on their own behaviors (e.g., younger children, children who do not communicate verbally). Thus, investigating caregiver descriptions of SIs in the present study will allow us to capture the behavioral experiences of SIs for a broad age range and to better understand how SIs are observed by caregivers of autistic youth.</p> <hd id="AN0189005204-2">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189005204-3">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were caregivers (<emph>N</emph> = 1922) of autistic youths (under age 18) enrolled in the Simons Foundation Powering Autism Research for Knowledge (SPARK) Project who completed a survey on SIs. The average age of the youths for whom caregivers reported was 9.10 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 4.15); 78.5% of the youths were male. The SPARK Project is a large-scale genetic phenotyping initiative that conducts research with autistic youth and their families through partnerships with universities and academic medical centers across the United States (Feliciano et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref35">10</reflink>]). Autistic individuals and family members can self- or caregiver-register with the initiative and participate in research studies hosted by SPARK-affiliated sites through the SPARK Research Match service. Although SPARK-affiliated sites invite autistic individuals and their families to enroll in SPARK, a diagnosis of autism from a health professional is not verified for enrollment. However, recent work demonstrates a high validity of enrollee-reported diagnosis history with medical records (98.8% agreement) for SPARK enrollees (Fombonne et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref36">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Participants for the present study were recruited electronically through the SPARK Research Match service in 2018. Eligible participants were caregivers (over the age of 18) of autistic youth (under the age of 18) enrolled in SPARK. There were no exclusion criteria. Eligible SPARK enrollees who opted into notifications about research opportunities received an email invitation from the SPARK Research Match service with a link to the electronic study survey. Upon survey completion, participants were informed they would be entered into a drawing for one of fifty $20 Amazon gift cards. Participants completed an electronic informed consent form prior to the study; all materials and procedures were approved by the IRB of the academic medical center that hosted the study. Demographic information was obtained at enrollment in the SPARK project prior to participation in the present study; de-identified data pertaining to demographic information (e.g., race/ethnicity, child and caregiver age) were supplied by SPARK and matched to survey responses via a unique identifier following survey completion. Demographic data are presented in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1 Demographic characteristics of participants</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Variable</p></th><th align="left" /></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Youth age in years</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Mean (<italic>SD</italic>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.07 (4.15)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Range</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.10–17.80</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Caregiver (respondent) age in years</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Mean (<italic>SD</italic>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>39.13 (7.42)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Range</p></td><td align="left"><p>20.30–75.00</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Youth gender % (n)</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Male</p></td><td align="left"><p>79.9 (1534)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Female</p></td><td align="left"><p>20.1 (387)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Caregiver (respondent) gender % (n)</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Male</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Female</p></td><td align="left"><p>95.4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Race/Ethnicity % (n)</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> White</p></td><td align="left"><p>90.7 (1743)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Hispanic</p></td><td align="left"><p>314 (16.3)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Black/African-American</p></td><td align="left"><p>8.6 (166)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Other</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.3 (102)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Asian</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.2 (81)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Native American</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.9 (18)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0189005204-4">Special Interests Survey</hd> <p>Participants completed the 31-item Special Interests Survey (SIS; Nowell et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref37">23</reflink>]), administered electronically. As detailed in the development article (Nowell et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref38">23</reflink>]) the SIS is an inventory of interests based on the Interests Scale (Bodfish, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref39">3</reflink>]) and coding transcripts from a sample of caregiver (<emph>N</emph> = 211) responses on questions 67 through 79 of the ADI-R (Rutter et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref40">24</reflink>]). The SIS expanded on the Interests Scale by including more SIs that were relevant to females and through updating examples to reflect technological advances since its development (e.g., watching YouTube videos) based on themes extracted from the ADI-R transcripts. The psychometric properties of the SIS have been examined in a network analysis study (see Brown et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref41">5</reflink>]), which found that interests "clustered" together in communities, and that the network structure was highly stable and generalizable to similar samples. These metrics demonstrated adequate psychometric properties for the SIS as a checklist inventory measure.</p> <p>The SIS consists of a checklist of 31 SIs categories with examples of interests that fit the category; participants are asked to endorse if their child has <emph>ever</emph> had a specific SI that fits within the given categories. Caregivers can also report interests not captured by the SIs by the categories with an "other" option. When a participant endorsed an SI category in the survey, survey logic would then reveal additional questions about the SI: (a) an open-ended question to describe the specific interest within the SI category, (b) whether the interest was a current or past interest, (c) the age at which the interest began, (d) the perceived unusualness or uniqueness of the interest (relative to same age peers), and (e) the degree of perceived interference associated with the SI. Only the endorsement of the SI and responses to the open-ended question about the specific SI, wherein caregivers then described the SI, were examined for the present study. Dedoose (Version 9.0, 2021), a qualitative data management program, was used for the analysis (coding) process and to generate crosstabulation frequency data.</p> <hd id="AN0189005204-5">Qualitative Analysis</hd> <p>Responses to the open-ended questions about SIs were examined using inductive content analysis (ICA; also "qualitative content analysis"). ICA is appropriate for text-based data (e.g., transcripts, open-ended survey items) when the goal of analysis is to extract categories from the data which are guided by a priori research questions; ICA lets the data "speak for itself." (Downe-Wamboldt, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref42">8</reflink>]; Vears & Gillam, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref43">33</reflink>]). Content analysis involves the following steps: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref44">1</reflink>) Selecting the unit of analysis, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref45">2</reflink>) Reviewing the data and generating potential categories (open coding), (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref46">3</reflink>) Developing a preliminary set of codes, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref47">4</reflink>) Data coding, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref48">5</reflink>) Revising and refining codes, (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref49">6</reflink>) Developing a final set of categories, and (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref50">7</reflink>) Coding all data with the final set of categories (Cho & Lee, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref51">6</reflink>]; Down-Wamboldt, 1992).</p> <hd id="AN0189005204-6">Coding Team</hd> <p>The coding team consisted of four masters-level graduate students in clinical psychology. All coders had prior experience working with autistic individuals. Two coders had prior experience as registered behavior technicians, one coder was credentialed as an occupational therapy assistant, and one coder had clinical experience in a residential treatment facility. The coding team was led by a licensed clinical psychologist (first author).</p> <hd id="AN0189005204-7">Coding Process</hd> <p>Only the text pertinent to the study research questions (i.e., the modality of SI engagement, the adaptability of SI modalities, and valanced language about SIs) was coded. Text that was descriptive and unrelated to the research questions' content was not coded. For example, the SI category Animals on the SIS reads: "Animals...Examples include horses, insects, cats, dogs, dinosaurs, and marine wildlife." An example of a non-descriptive response would be "cats." Conversely, an example of a descriptive response would be "She absolutely loves animals; they are drawn to her. She loves learning all about them and wants to be a vet when she grows up." These descriptive responses within a single SI follow-up response for a single caregiver (i.e., fields of text) were the units of analysis for coding (Step 1). Non-descriptive responses that followed SI endorsement (e.g., "cats") were not coded because they were not pertinent to the study questions; thus, endorsement of an SI did not necessarily yield fields of text that could be coded.</p> <p>After the units of analysis were defined, the coding team reviewed the responses from the first 200 cases of the dataset (10% of the sample) to develop the initial set of codes pertaining to SI modalities, adaptability of modalities, and valence of SIs (Step 2). A subset of 200 cases– rather than the entire sample – was selected for Step 2 based on extant research demonstrating that relatively small samples are needed to reach saturation of themes/categories (Guest et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref52">13</reflink>]). This subsample size was greater than or equal to the full sample size of studies using content analysis to examine caregiver-reported responses pertaining to autistic youth in open-ended surveys (e.g., Simpson & Adams, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref53">26</reflink>]; Voulgarakis et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref54">34</reflink>]). After reviewing all responses for the first 200 cases, the team created an initial set of coding categories with definitions (Step 3). These categories were then used to code the first 200 cases (Step 4). The coding team met weekly to review coding discrepancies and refine the initial categories.</p> <p>After the initial set of coding categories was established and used to code the first 200 cases, the remaining cases (<emph>N</emph> = 1722) were divided between two coding teams, each consisting of coders involved in creating the initial coding categories. Minor adjustments to the categories were made for parsimony and clarity as the coders coded responses for 1722 cases; categories were or merged, removed, or redefined as needed, such as when codes were redundant or produced low coding agreement (Step 5). A final set of categories and definitions was established after coding the 1722 cases (Step 6). The entire sample (<emph>N</emph> = 1922) was recoded a final time with no more revision to the categories (Step 7); all content was coded and reviewed by at least two members of the coding team. The coding team met weekly to review codes and compare coding results. Interrater agreement of the content coded each week was high (i.e., estimated > 90% agreement between coder dyads; disparate codes were resolved via consensus). Coding occurred over a 10-month period from January 2021 to November 2021.</p> <hd id="AN0189005204-8">Provisions to Ensure Trustworthiness</hd> <p>Seminal work on qualitative research methods posits that there are four constructs (criteria) employed to ensure trustworthiness and scientific rigor of qualitative studies (Lincoln & Guba, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref55">20</reflink>]; Shenton, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref56">25</reflink>]). These trustworthiness constructs have parallel concepts in quantitative methodology and are as follows: <emph>credibility</emph> addresses whether findings are consistent with reality (analogous to <emph>internal validity</emph>); <emph>transferability</emph> addresses the extent to which findings in one study may be representative of or generalize to broader contexts (analogous to <emph>external validity</emph> and <emph>generalizability</emph>); <emph>dependability</emph>, which addresses the degree to which the same methodological approaches yield the same outcomes (analogous to <emph>reliability</emph>); and <emph>confirmability</emph>, which is analogous to <emph>objectivity</emph> and underscores the importance that researchers' own perceptions and behaviors do not compromise the integrity of the observations drawn from data sources. In the Supplemental Materials, we highlight the strategies used to promote the trustworthiness of our findings, consistent with those strategies detailed by Shenton ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref57">25</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189005204-9">Frequency Data</hd> <p>Count data of the modality endorsement was compiled and computed within all SI categories. We also examined the proportions of codes within each modality that were adaptive or maladaptive, and the proportion of positively and negatively valanced codes within each SI. Frequency data was generated through a cross-tabulations function in Dedoose.</p> <hd id="AN0189005204-10">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189005204-11">SI Modalities</hd> <p>A final set of eight SI modalities were identified in the coding of 9,376 fields of text across the full sample: <emph>perseverating</emph>, <emph>creating</emph>, <emph>information-seeking</emph>, <emph>memorizing</emph>, <emph>collecting</emph>, <emph>attachment</emph>, <emph>sensory-seeking</emph>, and <emph>self-soothing</emph>. Descriptions and example codes for modalities are shown in Table 2. As shown in Table 3, the most frequently coded modalities were <emph>information-seeking</emph> and <emph>perseverating</emph> (representing 21.84% and 20.03% of all codes, respectively), and the least frequently coded was <emph>self-soothing</emph> (2.09%).</p> <p>Table 2 Special interest modality descriptions and example codes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Special Interest Modality</p></th><th align="left"><p>Modality Description/Definition</p></th><th align="left"><p>Example Code</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Perseverating</p></td><td align="left"><p>Repetitive thinking/obsessing over one concept/idea/event</p></td><td align="left"><p>"Extreme repetition of same shows and movies."</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Creating</p></td><td align="left"><p>Building, making, conceptualizing something new, inventing</p></td><td align="left"><p>"He likes to write his own comics and stories."</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Information-seeking</p></td><td align="left"><p>Child is seeking information/wants to know everything related to their special interest</p></td><td align="left"><p>"She wants to know about all of the Pokemon characters and what they evolve into."</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Memorizing</p></td><td align="left"><p>Committing something to memory, learning by heart, ability to recite information</p></td><td align="left"><p>"She memorizes dinosaur names and what type of group they belong to..."</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Collecting</p></td><td align="left"><p>Gathering/accumulating items, or the desire to do so</p></td><td align="left"><p>"Collecting groups of toys. Having all the characters in a group."</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Attachment</p></td><td align="left"><p>Refusing to let go of items, desire to always have it on your person, strong affection or fondness to item</p></td><td align="left"><p>"She has difficulty getting rid of dried up markers and crayons, and has multiple boxes filled with them..."</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Sensory-seeking</p></td><td align="left"><p>A behavioral tendency to seek out sensory</p><p>experiences/pursue sensory stimulation</p></td><td align="left"><p>"Chewing on things that are not food. Such as bottle caps, shirt sleeves, strings."</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Self-soothing</p></td><td align="left"><p>A behavior used to regulate an emotion</p></td><td align="left"><p>"She has a stuffed giraffe. She likes to rub his ears for comfort."</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 3 Number of modality codes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Special Interest Modality</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>N</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Perseverating</p></td><td align="left"><p>1878</p></td><td align="left"><p>20.03%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Creating</p></td><td align="left"><p>1544</p></td><td align="left"><p>16.47%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Information-seeking</p></td><td align="left"><p>2048</p></td><td align="left"><p>21.84%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Memorizing</p></td><td align="left"><p>857</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.14%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Collecting</p></td><td align="left"><p>1503</p></td><td align="left"><p>16.03%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Attachment</p></td><td align="left"><p>664</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.08%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Sensory-seeking</p></td><td align="left"><p>686</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.32%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Self-soothing</p></td><td align="left"><p>196</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.09%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Totals</p></td><td align="left"><p>9376</p></td><td align="left"><p>100%</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note </emph>Number of codes derived from non-descriptive text pertaining to youth special interests</p> <p>As shown in Table 4, we reported the frequency of SI modality endorsement within each SI category. Responses related to the SI category Objects (e.g., having an emotional attachment to an object, carrying objects, being distressed when an object is inaccessible) had the largest number of codes out of any SI (<emph>n</emph> = 833; meaning that 833 caregivers provided a descriptive, codable text response for the Objects category), followed by the SI category TV (<emph>n</emph> = 745), facts (e.g., compiling knowledge about various topics, making lists, trivia; <emph>n</emph> = 623), and art (<emph>n</emph> = 589). Codes related to the SI category Psychology (e.g., interests in studying psychology, emotions, and relationships) and Physics had the fewest proportion of responses (0.3% for both). At the level of the modalities, the endorsement of <emph>perseverating</emph> was highest for TV (76.6%); for <emph>creating</emph>, the endorsement was highest for art (91.3%); for <emph>information-seeking</emph>, endorsement was highest for Psychology (87.5%); for <emph>memorizing</emph>, endorsement was highest for Maps (41.5%); for <emph>collecting</emph>, endorsement was highest for Geology (71.9%); for <emph>attachment</emph>, endorsement was highest for Objects (56.3%); for <emph>sensory-seeking</emph>, endorsement was highest for Mechanical (38.9%); for <emph>self-soothing</emph>, the endorsement was highest for Music (10.7%). Several modalities were coded as 0% for the SI categories; the <emph>self-soothe</emph> modality had the highest number of 0% codes (<emph>n</emph> = 15; almost half of the 31 SI categories), followed by <emph>attachment</emph> (<emph>n</emph> = 8), <emph>sensory-seeking</emph> (<emph>n</emph> = 7), <emph>collecting</emph> (<emph>n</emph> = 5), and <emph>memorizing</emph> (<emph>n</emph> = 3).</p> <p>Table 4 Frequency of modalities of engagement in special interests</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>SI category</p></th><th align="left"><p>Responses coded (<italic>N</italic>)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Perseverating</p></th><th align="left"><p>Creating</p></th><th align="left"><p>Information- seeking</p></th><th align="left"><p>Memorizing</p></th><th align="left"><p>Collecting</p></th><th align="left"><p>Attachment</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sensory-seeking</p></th><th align="left"><p>Self-soothing</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Music</p></td><td align="left"><p>573</p></td><td align="left"><p>25.13%</p></td><td align="left"><p>14.14%</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.50%</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.69%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.35%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.57%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>28.97%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>10.65%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>TV</p></td><td align="left"><p>745</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>76.64%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>4.70%</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.43%</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.40%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.27%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.34%</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.28%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.94%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Reading & Writing</p></td><td align="left"><p>301</p></td><td align="left"><p>19.60%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>41.20%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>10.96%</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.97%</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.30%</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.99%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.66%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.33%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Construction</p></td><td align="left"><p>468</p></td><td align="left"><p>8.33%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>80.13%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>5.56%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.07%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.28%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.28%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.92%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.43%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Objects</p></td><td align="left"><p>833</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.49%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.68%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.72%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.84%</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.08%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>56.30%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>10.68%</p></td><td align="left"><p>10.20%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Art</p></td><td align="left"><p>589</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.57%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>91.34%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.68%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.19%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.51%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.34%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.70%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.68%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Math</p></td><td align="left"><p>82</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>39.02%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>6.10%</p></td><td align="left"><p>26.83%</p></td><td align="left"><p>13.41%</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.44%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.22%</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.44%</p></td><td align="left"><p>8.54%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Numbers</p></td><td align="left"><p>249</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>36.95%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>2.81%</p></td><td align="left"><p>22.09%</p></td><td align="left"><p>29.72%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.20%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.80%</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.21%</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.21%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Collect</p></td><td align="left"><p>130</p></td><td align="left"><p>35.38%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.85%</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.38%</p></td><td align="left"><p>N/A</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>42.31%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>3.08%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Animals</p></td><td align="left"><p>352</p></td><td align="left"><p>19.32%</p></td><td align="left"><p>8.52%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>48.30%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>9.94%</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.98%</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.69%</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.83%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.42%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Facts</p></td><td align="left"><p>623</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.72%</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.57%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>50.72%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>32.91%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.80%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.64%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.48%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.16%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Other</p></td><td align="left"><p>207</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>31.40%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>14.98%</p></td><td align="left"><p>20.29%</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.28%</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.38%</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.86%</p></td><td align="left"><p>18.36%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.45%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Time</p></td><td align="left"><p>214</p></td><td align="left"><p>40.65%</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.34%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>44.39%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>1.87%</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.80%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.87%</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.14%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.93%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Plants</p></td><td align="left"><p>75</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.67%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>44.00%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>34.67%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.33%</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.33%</p></td><td align="left"><p>8.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Maps</p></td><td align="left"><p>260</p></td><td align="left"><p>10.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.92%</p></td><td align="left"><p>38.07%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>41.54%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>2.31%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.38%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.77%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Transportation</p></td><td align="left"><p>206</p></td><td align="left"><p>26.21%</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.85%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>32.52%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>11.17%</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.71%</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.40%</p></td><td align="left"><p>12.14%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Toys</p></td><td align="left"><p>408</p></td><td align="left"><p>17.16%</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.41%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.72%</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.45%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>58.09%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>9.80%</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.88%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.49%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Computers</p></td><td align="left"><p>121</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.13%</p></td><td align="left"><p>43.80%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>46.28%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>3.31%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.83%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.65%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mechanical</p></td><td align="left"><p>434</p></td><td align="left"><p>27.19%</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.30%</p></td><td align="left"><p>31.57%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>38.94%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Machines</p></td><td align="left"><p>560</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.71%</p></td><td align="left"><p>17.86%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>65.00%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.71%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.36%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>10.36%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Sports</p></td><td align="left"><p>47</p></td><td align="left"><p>10.64%</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.13%</p></td><td align="left"><p>36.17%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>38.30%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>2.13%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>10.64%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Politics</p></td><td align="left"><p>28</p></td><td align="left"><p>17.86%</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.57%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>71.43%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>7.14%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Schedules</p></td><td align="left"><p>74</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>52.70%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>2.70%</p></td><td align="left"><p>27.03%</p></td><td align="left"><p>12.16%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.35%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.35%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.35%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.35%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Dates</p></td><td align="left"><p>139</p></td><td align="left"><p>25.90%</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.88%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>34.53%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>30.94%</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.16%</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.16%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.44%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Religion</p></td><td align="left"><p>75</p></td><td align="left"><p>17.33%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.33%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>52.00%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>29.33%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Astronomy</p></td><td align="left"><p>180</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.22%</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.22%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>61.67%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>27.22%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.11%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.56%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Geology</p></td><td align="left"><p>270</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.59%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.48%</p></td><td align="left"><p>16.67%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.48%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>71.85%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>2.96%</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.96%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Measuring</p></td><td align="left"><p>60</p></td><td align="left"><p>28.33%</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.67%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>36.67%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>8.33%</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.67%</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.33%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>History</p></td><td align="left"><p>84</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.76%</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.38%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>66.67%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>25.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.19%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Psychology</p></td><td align="left"><p>24</p></td><td align="left"><p>8.33%</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.17%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>87.50%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Physics</p></td><td align="left"><p>55</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.82%</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.27%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>78.18%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>9.10%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.64%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00%</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note </emph>Frequency of special interest modalities across special interest (SI) categories. "Collecting" emerged as an SI modality and was an SI category in the Special Interest Survey; thus, engagement codes pertaining to collecting were not coded within the collecting SI category. The most frequently endorsed modalities for each interested are bolded; no inferential statistics were performed on these data.</p> <hd id="AN0189005204-12">Adaptive Function of SI Modalities</hd> <p>There were 738 fields of texts that described SI modalities that were also coded for adaptive or maladaptive function. Adaptive function codes contained language of the SI modality as being helpful or having a present or future benefit. For example, the statement, "interested in comics...he loves to draw...his dream is to be a comic strip illustrator for a newspaper," is an adaptive comment within <emph>creating</emph>. Maladaptive function codes involved descriptions of the SI modality as problematic or harmful; for example, "Gets very defensive if asked to watch TV regularly without rewinding and rewatching" was coded as a maladaptive statement within <emph>perseverating</emph>. Of all fields coded for adaptive or maladaptive function, 33% were coded as <emph>perseverating</emph>. As shown in Table 5, the vast majority (98.02%) of responses related to <emph>attachment</emph> were coded as maladaptive, as were those related to <emph>perseverating</emph> (93.9%). Responses related to <emph>information-seeking</emph> were the highest proportion of adaptive responses (71.96%), followed by <emph>creating</emph> (69.05%). Adaptive and maladaptive function codes were equally represented in the <emph>memorizing</emph> and <emph>self-soothing</emph> modalities.</p> <p>Table 5 Modalities and qualitative descriptions of special interests</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>SI Modality</p></th><th align="left"><p>Responses Coded (<italic>N</italic>)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Adaptive</p></th><th align="left"><p>Maladaptive</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Perseverating</p></td><td align="left"><p>244</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.15%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>93.85%</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Creating</p></td><td align="left"><p>126</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>69.05%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>30.95%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Information-Seeking</p></td><td align="left"><p>107</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>71.96%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>28.04%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Memorizing</p></td><td align="left"><p>65</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>50.77%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>49.23%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Collecting</p></td><td align="left"><p>31</p></td><td align="left"><p>19.35%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>80.65%</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Attachment</p></td><td align="left"><p>101</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.98%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>98.02%</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Sensory-Seeking</p></td><td align="left"><p>47</p></td><td align="left"><p>27.66%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>72.34%</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Self-Soothing</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p>47.06%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>52.94%</bold></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note </emph>Highest values are bolded.</p> <hd id="AN0189005204-13">Positive and Negative Descriptions of SIs</hd> <p>A total of 1,168 fields of text were identified as relating to whether the SI itself was seen as positive or negative (see Table 6). Positive and negative (i.e., valanced) statements about SIs were distinct from statements coded regarding SI modality. Positive SI statements described the SI <emph>itself</emph> as being a skill, ability, or another positive attribute. For example, "She has always loved anything space related. She wants to be an astronomer when she grows up and has asked what education she needs to accomplish her goal" is a positively coded statement within the astronomy SI. Negative SI statements described the SI as detrimental with anecdotes related to negative consequences. For example, "He is completely obsessed with movies...this has been a terrible ongoing struggle" is a negative SI statement within the TV category. Codes related to music were most prevalent and represented 8.6% of all coded responses. As shown in Table 6, the SI category plants had the highest proportion of positive codes (94.1%), while objects had the highest proportion of negative codes (97.4%). As noted above, these frequencies were derived from cross-tabulation counts wherein SI categories were columns and valanced statement categories (positive/negative) were rows. As such, the 1,168 fields of text captured here could include multiple valence codes from the same caregiver, provided that the respondent described more than one SI in valanced terms (see Table 7).</p> <p>Table 6 Valence of special interests</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>SI category</p></th><th align="left"><p>Responses coded (<italic>N</italic>)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Positive valence</p></th><th align="left"><p>Negative valence</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Music</p></td><td align="left"><p>101</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>70.30%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>29.70%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>TV</p></td><td align="left"><p>94</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.70%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>88.30%</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Reading & Writing</p></td><td align="left"><p>77</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>80.52%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>19.48%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Objects</p></td><td align="left"><p>77</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.60%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>97.40%</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Construction</p></td><td align="left"><p>76</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>61.84%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>38.16%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Art</p></td><td align="left"><p>71</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>74.65%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>25.35%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Math</p></td><td align="left"><p>66</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>90.91%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>9.09%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Numbers</p></td><td align="left"><p>62</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>80.65%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>19.35%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Collecting</p></td><td align="left"><p>53</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.55%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>92.45%</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Animals</p></td><td align="left"><p>47</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>76.60%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>23.40%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Facts</p></td><td align="left"><p>42</p></td><td align="left"><p>42.86%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>57.14%</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Other</p></td><td align="left"><p>39</p></td><td align="left"><p>38.46%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>61.54%</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Time</p></td><td align="left"><p>37</p></td><td align="left"><p>18.92%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>81.08%</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Plants</p></td><td align="left"><p>34</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>94.12%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>5.88%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Maps</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>56.67%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>43.33%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Transportation</p></td><td align="left"><p>29</p></td><td align="left"><p>41.38%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>58.62%</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Toys</p></td><td align="left"><p>28</p></td><td align="left"><p>14.29%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>85.71%</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Computers</p></td><td align="left"><p>25</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>80.00%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>20.00%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mechanical</p></td><td align="left"><p>24</p></td><td align="left"><p>29.17%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>70.83%</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Machines</p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>78.26%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>21.74%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Sports</p></td><td align="left"><p>19</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>52.63%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>47.37%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Schedules</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.88%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>94.12%</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Politics</p></td><td align="left"><p>16</p></td><td align="left"><p>37.50%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>62.50%</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Religion</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>33.33%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>66.67%</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Dates</p></td><td align="left"><p>14</p></td><td align="left"><p>42.86%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>57.14%</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Astronomy</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>66.67%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>33.33%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Geology</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>45.45%</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>54.55%</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Measuring</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>60.0%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>40.00%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>History</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>88.89%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>11.11%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Psychology</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>66.67%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>33.33%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Physics</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>75.00%</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>25.00%</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note </emph>Highest values are bolded.</p> <p>Table 7 Summary of most-coded special interests with primary modalities and modality adaptability</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Special Interest</p></th><th align="left"><p>Primary modalities (% of modality codes)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Adaptability of Primary Modality (% of adaptability code)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Objects</p></td><td align="left"><p>Attachment (56.30%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>98.02% Maladaptive</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>TV</p></td><td align="left"><p>Perseverating (76.64%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>93.85% Maladaptive</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Facts</p></td><td align="left"><p>Information seeking (50.72%); Memorizing (32.91%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>71.96% Adaptive; 50.77% Adaptive</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Art</p></td><td align="left"><p>Creating (91.34%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>69.05% Adaptive</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Music</p></td><td align="left"><p>Sensory seeking 28.97%; perseverating 25.13%</p></td><td align="left"><p>72.34% Maladaptive; 93.85% Maladaptive</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note </emph>Summary table of the most-coded SIs with primary modalities. Primary modalities were defined as those modalities that represented more than 25% of all modality codes pertaining to the SI.</p> <hd id="AN0189005204-14">Discussion</hd> <p>SIs in autistic youth have historically been examined at the level of their subject matter – the "what" of the SI (e.g., fictional characters, maps) – with less focus on "how" youth engage in their SIs. Exploring these separate "components" of SIs – subject matter and modality – can help further researchers' understanding of SIs and inform strengths-focused intervention and assessment practices. The present study sought to answer three exploratory research questions on SI engagement. We answered these research questions through a qualitative analysis of caregiver descriptions of their autistic children's SIs, in which we identified several modalities in which youth engage in their SIs (question 1), descriptions of adaptive or maladaptive function associated with those modalities (question 2), and the degree to which SIs are described as positive or negative (question 3).</p> <p>We found that autistic youth engage in SIs through various modalities and identified eight modalities of SI engagement. Endorsement of the modalities varied across the SI categories, with several SI categories represented predominantly by one modality and others represented by several modalities. For example, the SI categories for art and construction were represented by the <emph>creating</emph> modality, consistent with how art- and construction-related activities generally occur (e.g., building with Legos, painting, drawing). Conversely, several SI categories were represented by a few major modalities, such as the numbers and dates categories. There were no SI categories for which there was equal distribution across all modalities. In general, if modality endorsement was 0% for a given SI, it represented an unusual or impossible way to engage in an SI, such as <emph>self-soothing</emph> with plants, <emph>sensory-seeking</emph> with astronomy, or being <emph>attached</emph> to history.</p> <p> <emph>Information-seeking</emph> and <emph>perseverating</emph> had the highest proportion of codes, suggesting that activities related to learning and researching and repetitive, focused attention are the most frequent ways autistic youth engage in their SIs. One way to conceptualize these somewhat similar modalities is to consider <emph>perseveration</emph> and <emph>information-seeking</emph> as part of the same attention-related continuum, ranging from broad/novel to narrow/repetitive. <emph>Information-seeking</emph> reflects using a broad range of behaviors to gather new information about an interest, such as reading or watching diverse content to learn more about something (e.g., a group of characters or several motorized vehicles). Conversely, <emph>perseverative</emph> behaviors typically involve interacting with a narrow scope of the interest (e.g., a specific character, a particular type of vehicle) in a way that does not yield novel information about the subject matter (e.g., by rewatching videos or re-reading a particular book or passage).</p> <p>The modalities that were least prevalent were <emph>sensory-seeking</emph> and <emph>self-soothing</emph>. Understandably, the SIs categories that were most frequently endorsed for these categories were related to sensory experiences, such as music, objects (which involves carrying them and touching them), transportation (sensation of movement, sound), and mechanical activities (watching rotating objects). It should be noted that <emph>self-soothing</emph> may be underrepresented in the present study due to the caregiver-report methodology and behavioral overlap with <emph>sensory-seeking</emph>. For our coding, the distinction between these modalities was that the <emph>self-soothing</emph> codes reflected a utility of the SI in calming down or alleviating an intense emotional state. However, it is possible that behaviors reported by caregivers may not fully reflect the internal experiences of the youth who engage in them. Similarly, it is possible that fields coded as <emph>perseverating</emph> (based on caregiver's perspective) would be described as <emph>self-soothing</emph> based on the youth's perspective. As the present study demonstrated, when caregivers are asked to describe their child's interests, many described the interest in terms of sensory experiences. Although these caregiver descriptions of sensory engagement reflect that caregivers believe their child is engaging in an interest, it is possible that some behaviors may appear very similar to sensory-driven behavior that is not interest related. Distinguishing between interest-related and non-interest related sensory behaviors should be explored in future research.</p> <p>Several modalities involved behaviors commonly associated with the core autistic symptom domain of RRBs: <emph>attachment</emph>, <emph>perseverating</emph>, <emph>collecting</emph>, and <emph>sensory-seeking</emph>. Interestingly, over 70% of fields pertaining to these modalities were described as maladaptive, consistent with these being considered possible impairments in the DSM-5. Those modalities with a higher proportion of adaptive codes – <emph>information-seeking</emph> and <emph>creating</emph> – represented more "typical" modes of engagement that were not necessarily associated with RRBs. Taken together, a key finding of the present study is that autistic youth engage in SIs through a range of modalities and that while many of these modalities are consistent with behaviors associated with autism, other modalities are similar to how youth generally engage in interests and play activities (e.g., arts and crafts, music; Lehto & Eskelinen, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref58">19</reflink>]; Sivan et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref59">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>In general, descriptions of SIs appeared linked with the primary modalities used to engage in them. The SIs with the highest proportion of negative codes (over 80%) were objects, schedules, collecting, TV, toys, and time. All of these interests were represented by a high proportion of engagement with at least one modality that was predominantly coded as maladaptive (over 80%): <emph>attachment</emph>, <emph>collecting</emph>, and <emph>perseverating</emph>. Thus, it seems reasonable to suggest that negative descriptions of SIs may be explained, at least in part, by the degree to which the predominant modalities to engage in them are associated with maladaptive function.</p> <p>These findings raise important questions about the nature of SIs in autistic youth. SIs are distinguished from "typical" interests by their intensity, unusualness, or how they may impair a person. If an interest is not considered unusual and is pursued in an adaptive way, it becomes challenging to differentiate between an SI and a typical interest for an autistic person. While more research is required in this area, it seems reasonable to propose that not all interests in autistic individuals are necessarily "special interests." Additionally, it is crucial to consider how positive SIs may become maladaptive to development due to contextual factors. For instance, an SI might interfere with reciprocal social interactions or take away time from engaging in prosocial activities.</p> <hd id="AN0189005204-15">Limitations</hd> <p>Several limitations warrant comment. First, the responses coded in the ICA were extracted from open-ended questions where caregivers chose to describe the specific interest within the SI category. Respondents were not specifically prompted to explain their own opinions or perspectives on the SI, or how their child engages in the interest, and the use of such prompts could have potentially yielded a slightly different set of findings. Nonetheless, the sample size and several items on the SIS yielded many responses for coding and provide some insight into how autistic youth engage in SIs. Second, the sample was relatively homogenous, as most caregivers reported on the SIs of white youth who identified as male gender. Although these demographics are representative of families that participate in autism-related research, they are not representative of the population of autistic youth. Therefore, the generalizability of these findings may be limited only to those samples that were similar to the sample of the present study. Increasing the representation of racially and ethnically diverse youth and youth across the gender spectrum within autism-related research is imperative (Jones & Mandell, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref60">15</reflink>]; West et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref61">35</reflink>]). Third, responses were derived from caregiver-report on the SIS. Although caregivers provide an important vantage point on youth SIs – particularly for younger youth who may struggle with self-reporting – these descriptions may not fully capture how the youth engage in their SIs, or caregivers' beliefs about those interests. As previously mentioned, what may be described by a caregiver as <emph>perseverating</emph> or <emph>sensory-seeking</emph> may be thought of by the youth as <emph>information-seeking</emph> or <emph>self-soothing</emph> behavior. Future work on SIs should be sure to incorporate the perspectives of autistic youth, especially to help differentiate between SI engagement through sensory modalities versus sensory behavior. Future examinations of SIs should also explore autistic individuals' perceptions of the adaptability, benefits, or challenges associated with their SIs. This additional context about SIs may be helpful in preventing potential overpathologizing of SIs and support the agency of autistic individuals. Lastly, autism diagnosis was not verified at enrollment in the present study. However, we are relatively confident that the vast majority of our respondents were caregivers of autistic youth, given the high rate of agreement (98.8%) between medical records and enrollee-reported diagnosis of autism for SPARK participants (Fombonne et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref62">11</reflink>]). Regardless, the use of diagnostic confirmation procedures should be considered in future studies, particularly for researchers who wish to collect data online and without the infrastructure and enrollment procedures of programs like the SPARK Research Match.</p> <hd id="AN0189005204-16">Clinical Implications and Future Directions</hd> <p>The notion that SIs can be best understood at the level of both their subject matter and their modalities has several important implications for assessment and treatment. As most autistic youth have at least one SI, asking youth and their families about areas of interest (phrased as hobbies, passions, pastimes, or by administering an SI measure) may be beneficial as part of an assessment or at the onset of therapeutic services. Following that, asking about how a youth engages in their SIs may yield information that can capture the youth's range of function, improve treatment engagement, address areas of concern for caregivers, and lay the groundwork for acceptance and support. More nuanced discussions about SIs can yield information about how the youth spends their time with the SI, potential skills or abilities that the youth has, and overlooked benefits of SIs. In cases where caregivers find SIs to be challenging, clinicians may be able to support caregivers in problem solving as well as caregivers' own reframing around SIs and acceptance strategies. Lastly, caregivers may feel embarrassed or ashamed about their child's engagement in their SI or believe that SIs are negative and should be avoided. Further exploring how SIs can be adaptive for an individual youth may help improve caregivers' confidence and decrease stress related to SIs.</p> <p>It should be emphasized that, as indicated by the current findings, SIs - and how youth engage in those SIs - are often seen as a source of pride for youth and their caregivers alike. The nature of assessment and intervention when working with autistic youth is such that areas of concern, challenging behavior, and lagging development predominate clinical conversations (Cosden et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref63">7</reflink>]; Urbanowicz et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref64">32</reflink>]). Deliberate discussions about SIs and engagement can allow caregivers to discuss what their child does well and how they may even excel in certain areas. Although not explored empirically, such discussions may have the added benefit of improving engagement for caregivers and families and strengthening therapeutic relationships.</p> <p>Our findings highlight several potential future directions. New measures of SIs should be geared to also capture modalities. For example, the SIS and other similar measures (e.g., the Interest Scale; Bodfish, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref65">3</reflink>]) include SI categories for collecting and facts (seeking out information), which may better reflect modalities than SIs themselves. Future versions of interest inventories and interviews may be adapted to capture SI content and modalities separately, along with examples of each modality. Future work may also examine the relations between caregiver mood states or emotional functioning and how SIs and modalities are described. For example, caregivers of autistic youth report high levels of stress and other mental health challenges (Enea & Rusu, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref66">9</reflink>]), which may influence their reporting styles. For all these directions, it will be important to include the perspectives of autistic individuals, especially in the development of self-report interest inventories, which should be developed with the respondent characteristics in mind (e.g., language level, IQ). Moreover, it is possible that the inclusion of these perspectives will shed light on additional modes of engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0189005204-17">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study found that autistic youth engage in their SIs through various modalities. Although several modalities are consistent with RRBs, modalities also include activities that are typically not ascribed to RRBs. The most frequent modalities involved learning about or focusing intently on the content of the SI. Modalities that were consistent with RRBs were viewed by caregivers as maladaptive or negative, as were the SIs that for which RRB-like modalities were predominant. Conceptualizing SIs at the level of their subject matter <emph>and</emph> modes of engagement lays the groundwork for future research on SIs and has applications for practice.</p> <hd id="AN0189005204-18">Acknowledgements</hd> <p> <bold>and Data Availability</bold>: This project was made possible by the Simons Foundation Powering Autism Research for Knowledge (SPARK) Project. We are grateful to all of the families in SPARK, the SPARK clinical sites, and SPARK staff. Approved researchers can obtain the SPARK population dataset described in this study by applying at https://base.sfari.org. We appreciate obtaining access to recruit participants through the SPARK Research Match on Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative (SFARI) Base.</p> <hd id="AN0189005204-19">Funding</hd> <p>None.</p> <hd id="AN0189005204-20">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189005204-21">Conflict of Interest</hd> <p>None to declare.</p> <hd id="AN0189005204-22">Electronic supplementary material</hd> <p>Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary Material 1</p> <hd id="AN0189005204-23">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0189005204-24"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychiatric Association (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fifth edition, text revision (DSM-5-TR). DSM Library. https://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/book/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S. Obsessions in children with autism or Asperger syndrome. Content analysis in terms of core domains of cognition. The British Journal of Psychiatry: The Journal of Mental Science. 1999; 175: 484-490. 10.1192/bjp.175.5.484. 10789283</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bodfish, J. W. (2003). Interests Scale. Chapel Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref47" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bottema-Beutel K, Kapp SK, Lester JN, Sasson NJ, Hand BN. Avoiding Ableist Language: Suggestions for Autism Researchers. Autism in Adulthood. 2021; 3; 1: 18-29. 10.1089/aut.2020.0014. 36601265. 8992888</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref18" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Brown CE, Beauchamp MT, Nowell KP, Bernardin CJ, Kanne SM. The network structure of the special interests Survey. Autism Research. 2023; 16: 379-393. 10.1002/aur.2862. 36515154</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref49" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Cho, J, & Lee, E. H. (2014). Reducing Confusion about Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1028</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref50" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cosden M, Koegel LK, Koegel RL, Greenwell A, Klein E. Strength-based Assessment for children with Autism Spectrum disorders. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities (RPSD). 2006; 31; 2: 134-143. 10.1177/154079690603100206</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref42" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Downe-Wamboldt B. Content analysis: Method, applications, and issues. Health Care for Women International. 1992; 13; 3: 313-321. 10.1080/07399339209516006. 1399871</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref66" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Enea V, Rusu DM. Raising a child with Autism Spectrum disorder: A systematic review of the literature investigating parenting stress. Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities. 2020; 13; 4: 283-321. 10.1080/19315864.2020.1822962</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feliciano P, Daniels AM, Snyder LG, Beaumont A, Camba A, Esler A, Gulsrud AG, Mason A, Gutierrez A, Nicholson A, Paolicelli AM, McKenzie AP, Rachubinski AL, Stephens AN, Simon AR, Stedman A, Shocklee AD, Swanson A, Finucane B, Chung WK. SPARK: A US Cohort of 50,000 families to accelerate Autism Research. Neuron. 2018; 97; 3: 488-493. 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.01.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fombonne E, Coppola L, Mastel S, O'Roak BJ. Validation of Autism diagnosis and Clinical Data in the SPARK cohort. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2022; 52; 8: 3383-3398. 10.1007/s10803-021-05218-y. 34328611</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grove R, Hoekstra RA, Weirda M, Begeer S. Special interests and subjective well-being in autistic adults. Autism Research. 2018; 11; 5: 766-775. 10.1002/aur.1931. 29427546</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are Enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006; 18; 1: 59-82. 10.1177/1525822X05279903</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrop C, Amsbary J, Towner-Wright S, Reichow B, Boyd BA. That's what I like: The use of circumscribed interests within interventions for individuals with autism spectrum disorder. A systematic review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2019; 57: 63-86. 10.1016/j.rasd.2018.09.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones DR, Mandell DS. To address racial disparities in autism research, we must think globally, act locally. Autism. 2020; 24; 7: 1587-1589. 10.1177/1362361320948313. 32998555</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klin A, Danovitch JH, Merz AB, Volkmar FR. Circumscribed interests in higher functioning individuals with Autism Spectrum disorders: An exploratory study. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 2007; 32; 2: 89-100. 10.2511/rpsd.32.2.89</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koenig KP, Williams LH. Characterization and utilization of Preferred interests: A survey of adults on the Autism Spectrum. Occupational Therapy in Mental Health. 2017; 33; 2: 129-140. 10.1080/0164212X.2016.1248877</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Larose V, Sotelo K, Mottron L, Jacques C. Initial development of a questionnaire about parents' perspectives on the strengths and interests of autistic preschoolers. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement. 2021; 53; 4: 530-535. 10.1037/cbs0000268</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lehto S, Eskelinen K. Playing makes it fun' in out-of-school activities: Children's organised leisure. Childhood. 2020; 27; 4: 545-561. 10.1177/0907568220923142</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lincoln, Y. S, & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lord C, Rutter M, Le Couteur A. Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised: A revised version of a diagnostic interview for caregivers of individuals with possible pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 1994; 24; 5: 659-685. 10.1007/BF02172145. 7814313</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maenner MJ, Warren Z, Williams AR, Amoakohene E, Bakian AV, Bilder DA, Durkin MS, Fitzgerald RT, Furnier SM, Hughes MM, Ladd-Acosta CM, McArthur D, Pas ET, Salinas A, Vehorn A, Williams S, Esler A, Grzybowski A, Hall-Lande J, Shaw KA. Prevalence and characteristics of Autism Spectrum Disorder among children aged 8 years—Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 sites, United States, 2020. MMWR Surveillance Summaries. 2023; 72; 2: 1-14. 10.15585/mmwr.ss7202a1. 10042615</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nowell KP, Bernardin CJ, Brown C, Kanne S. Characterization of special interests in Autism Spectrum disorder: A brief review and pilot study using the special interests Survey. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2021; 51; 8: 2711-2724. 10.1007/s10803-020-04743-6. 33034785</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rutter, M, Le Couteur, A, & Lord, C. (2003). Autism diagnostic interview revised. Western Psychological Services.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shenton AK. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information. 2004; 22; 2: 63-75. 10.3233/EFI-2004-22201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simpson K, Adams D. Brief report: Covid Restrictions had positive and negative impacts on schooling for students on the Autism Spectrum. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2023; 53; 7: 2921-2927. 10.1007/s10803-022-05451-z. 35113328</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sivan A, Tam V, Siu G, Stebbins R. Adolescents' choice and pursuit of their most important and interesting leisure activities. Leisure Studies. 2019; 38; 1: 98-113. 10.1080/02614367.2018.1539867</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taboas A, Doepke K, Zimmerman C. Preferences for identity-first versus person-first language in a US sample of autism stakeholders. Autism. 2023; 27; 2: 565-570. 10.1177/13623613221130845. 36237135</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teti M, Cheak-Zamora N, Lolli B, Maurer-Batjer A. Reframing autism: Young adults with Autism Share their strengths through photo-stories. Journal of Pediatric Nursing: Nursing Care of Children and Families. 2016; 31; 6: 619-629. 10.1016/j.pedn.2016.07.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turner-Brown LM, Lam KSL, Holtzclaw TN, Dichter GS, Bodfish JW. Phenomenology and measurement of circumscribed interests in autism spectrum disorders. Autism. 2011; 15; 4: 437-456. 10.1177/1362361310386507. 21454386. 3709861</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uljarević M, Alvares GA, Steele M, Edwards J, Frazier TW, Hardan AY, Whitehouse AJ. Toward better characterization of restricted and unusual interests in youth with autism. Autism. 2022; 26; 5: 1296-1304. 10.1177/13623613211056720. 34818937</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Urbanowicz A, Nicolaidis C, Houting J, den, Shore SM, Gaudion K, Girdler S, Savarese RJ. An Expert discussion on strengths-based approaches in Autism. Autism in Adulthood. 2019; 1; 2: 82-89. 10.1089/aut.2019.29002.aju. 36601531. 8992818</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vears DF, Gillam L. Inductive content analysis: A guide for beginning qualitative researchers. Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-Professional Journal. 2022; 23; 1: 111-127. 10.11157/fohpe.v23i1.544</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Voulgarakis HM, Lisa JAS, Conde KA, Davies EA. The experience of Parenting Children with Autism Spectrum disorder: A qualitative content analysis. Child Care in Practice. 2023; 29; 1: 83-95. 10.1080/13575279.2021.1939655</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> West EA, Travers JC, Kemper TD, Liberty LM, Cote DL, McCollow MM, Stansberry Brusnahan LL. Racial and Ethnic Diversity of Participants in Research supporting evidence-based practices for Learners with Autism Spectrum Disorder. The Journal of Special Education. 2016; 50; 3: 151-163. 10.1177/0022466916632495</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winter-Messiers MA. From Tarantulas to Toilet brushes: Understanding the special interest areas of children and Youth with Asperger Syndrome. Remedial and Special Education. 2007; 28; 3: 140-152. 10.1177/07419325070280030301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood R. Autism, intense interests and support in school: From wasted efforts to shared understandings. Educational Review. 2021; 73; 1: 34-54. 10.1080/00131911.2019.1566213</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0189005204-25"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> Based on the preferences of the autistic community and advocates, and with recommendations on anti-ableist language (Bottema-Beutel et al ([4]). ; Taboas et al., [28]), we use identity-first language (e.g., autistic youth) throughout this manuscript.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Cynthia E. Brown; Tal Collins; Riley K. Foy; Kirsten E. Bonish; Taylor E. Ramsey; Kerri P. Nowell; Courtney J. Bernardin and Stephen M. Kanne</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref64"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1492911
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The How Rather than the What: A Qualitative Analysis of Modalities and Caregiver Descriptions of Special Interests in Autistic Youth
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cynthia+E%2E+Brown%22">Cynthia E. Brown</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5514-080X">0000-0001-5514-080X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tal+Collins%22">Tal Collins</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Riley+K%2E+Foy%22">Riley K. Foy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kirsten+E%2E+Bonish%22">Kirsten E. Bonish</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Taylor+E%2E+Ramsey%22">Taylor E. Ramsey</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kerri+P%2E+Nowell%22">Kerri P. Nowell</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Courtney+J%2E+Bernardin%22">Courtney J. Bernardin</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stephen+M%2E+Kanne%22">Stephen M. Kanne</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Autism+and+Developmental+Disorders%22"><i>Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders</i></searchLink>. 2025 55(11):3998-4008.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Caregivers%22">Child Caregivers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Caregiver+Attitudes%22">Caregiver Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Autism+Spectrum+Disorders%22">Autism Spectrum Disorders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Youth%22">Youth</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interests%22">Interests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adjustment+%28to+Environment%29%22">Adjustment (to Environment)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interest+Inventories%22">Interest Inventories</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Persistence%22">Persistence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity%22">Creativity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Information+Seeking%22">Information Seeking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Memorization%22">Memorization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attachment+Behavior%22">Attachment Behavior</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10803-024-06501-4
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0162-3257<br />1573-3432
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Nearly all autistic youth have special interests (SIs), which are associated with many benefits and challenges. Most research on SIs has focused on the subject matter of SIs, with less focus on understanding how youth engage in their SIs. We conducted a qualitative study using inductive content analysis (ICA) to examine: (1) The modalities youth use to engage in their SIs, (2) the degree to which such modalities are described by caregivers as adaptive or maladaptive, and (3) the extent to which the SIs themselves are described by caregivers positively or negatively. We coded responses from 1922 caregivers of autistic youths who completed an online version of the Special Interests Survey, a caregiver-report measure of SIs. Responses to open-ended questions on the SIS, wherein caregivers describe the specific interest within the endorsed SI category, were used as data for the ICA. Frequencies of the codes were derived from cross-tabulation data. The ICA yielded eight modalities: "perseverating, creating, information-seeking, memorizing, collecting, attachment, sensory-seeking," and "self-soothing." "Perseverating, collecting," and "attachment" were described as maladaptive and negatively by caregivers, whereas "creating" and "information-seeking" were described as adaptive. SIs with the greatest proportion of positive and negative descriptions were Plants and Objects, respectively. These findings suggest that SIs -- and the degree to which they are described as beneficial or problematic -- may be associated with modality and the subject matter. Considering how autistic individuals engage in SIs has implications for clinical work and future research in this area.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1492911
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1492911
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10803-024-06501-4
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 3998
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Child Caregivers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Caregiver Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Autism Spectrum Disorders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Youth
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adjustment (to Environment)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interest Inventories
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Persistence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creativity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Information Seeking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Memorization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attachment Behavior
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The How Rather than the What: A Qualitative Analysis of Modalities and Caregiver Descriptions of Special Interests in Autistic Youth
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cynthia E. Brown
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tal Collins
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Riley K. Foy
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kirsten E. Bonish
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Taylor E. Ramsey
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kerri P. Nowell
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Courtney J. Bernardin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stephen M. Kanne
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0162-3257
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-3432
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 55
            – Type: issue
              Value: 11
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
              Type: main
ResultId 1