Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Performance in High-Functioning Individuals with ASD: An Update

Background: Children and adults with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) are reported to show a cognitive bias toward a part-oriented processing style. Deficits in some executive processes are also found. The widely used Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (ROCF) provides a measure by which to investigate the effects of both processing style and organizational strategies when encoding and subsequently recalling a novel and complex stimulus.
Objectives: This study seeks to examine the ROCF performance of children and adults with ASD with comparisons to typically developing children and adults and other clinical groups (children with TS, OCD, and/or ADHD).
Methods: The ROCF was administered to 170 high functioning individuals (Full Scale, Verbal, and Performance IQ scores of 70 or above; age range 6:0 – 42:6 years). The sample consisted of three subgroups: individuals with ASD (n=50), typically developing individuals (n=49), and individuals with TS, OCD, and/or ADHD (n=71). The drawings were scored with two scoring systems: the Developmental Scoring System (DSS; Bernstein & Waber, 1996) and the Boston Qualitative Scoring System (BQSS; Stern et al., 1999). Quantitative analyses of performance examined differences in processing style and visuo-spatial planning/organization, and the differential impact on immediate and later recall.
Results: At IMFAR 2008, preliminary results of this study were reported (for children between 8 and 14 years of age only). We have now analyzed DSS data for all age groups; at IMFAR 2009, we report on the BQSS data as well. There is a very robust finding when comparing the DSS data of the three groups (ASD, NC, CC): individuals with ASD process the ROCF in a more part-oriented way than the TD group. This is most evident in the older age group (14:0 – 42:6 years), where part-oriented processing also discriminates the ASD group from the CC group. There are no significant differences between the three groups with respect to the organization of the figure. Additionally, whereas organization and style of processing are strongly correlated in the TD (r=.609) and CC (r=.562) groups, this relationship is not significant in the ASD group (r=.290). Regression analyses indicate that a model using the variables age, IQ, organization and style as predictors accounts for a significant proportion of the variance in recall outcome for the TD and ASD groups. Although both are correlated with recall scores, the part-r values indicate a significant unique contribution of style for the TD group and organization for the ASD group.
Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that individuals with ASD are distinct from TD and CC groups in the following ways when processing novel complex information: (1) the approach is more part-oriented; (2) processing style is somewhat independent of organization and (3) there does not appear to be a shift to a more configurational approach with age. Additionally, although both organization and style of processing are associated with recall, a more configurational style appears to be a significant unique variable for the NC group whereas organization may be especially relevant to recall for individuals with ASD.