Overview
The Social Responsiveness Scale – Second Edition (SRS-2; Constantino & Gruber, 2012) is a 65-item parent- and/or teacher- completed rating scale used to assist in the screening and diagnosis of autism. Specifically, this instrument helps to identify the presence and severity of social impairment within the autism spectrum and differentiates it from that which occurs in other disorders. Four forms are available, including a School-Age Form (for ages 4-18), a Preschool Form (for ages 2 ½ - 4 ½), and Adult Form (for ages 19+), and an Adult Self-Report Form (a self-report option for ages 19+). Questions are rated on a 4-point Likert scale. The purpose of the SRS-2 is to reveal a wide range of symptoms from subtle to more pronounced. The instrument yields an overall score and five treatment subscales that can be used for program planning in the areas of: Social Awareness, Social Cognition, Social Communication, Social Motivation, and Restricted Interests and Repetitive Behaviors. Two subscales, Social Communication and Interaction and Restricted Interests and Repetitive Behaviors, are designed to be DSM-5-compatible. The SRS-2 can be administered and scored by hand, or with the WPS Online Evaluation System. Spanish forms are also available.
Summary
Age: 2 years 5 months to Adult
Time to Administer: 15-20 minutes
Method of Administration: Four forms with 65 items for a specific age groups. Parent/caregiver, teacher, or self-report (for ages 19+) options; items rated on 4-point Likert scale
Yields T scores (M = 50, SD = 10) for an overall severity score and subscale scores
Subscales: Overall Composite Score: Total Score
Subscale Scores: Social Awareness; Social Cognition; Social Communication; Social Motivation; Restricted Interests and Repetitive Behavior
Additional Score: DSM-5 Compatible Subscales
Screening/Diagnosis: S/D
Autism Related Research
The tables below detail research specific to the use of the current version of the instrument, the SRS-2. However, its predecessor, the SRS (Constantino, 2005) also has research that users of the SRS-2 may find useful. Selected studies specific to the use of the original SRS include findings such as: (a) A study of concurrent validity between the SRS and the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R) indicated that the SRS was a valid quantitative measure of autistic traits, feasible for use in clinical settings and for large-scale research studies of autism spectrum conditions (Constantino et al., 2003); and (b) when comparing screening accuracy of the SRS and the Autism Spectrum Rating Scales (ASRS), Li et al. (2018) found that individuals with intellectual disability (ID) had higher scores on the SRS than typically developing peers and the SRS performed slightly better than the ASRS, though both measures were shown to have good discriminant validity but the authors suggested that the cut-off point for the SRS when used to discriminate ID from ASD should be slightly higher.
Rodgers et al. (2019)
Age Range:
Sample Size: 68
Topics Addressed:
Comparison of SRS-2 scores for males vs. females
Outcome:Rodgers et al. (2019)
on-significant and minimal differences (negligible-to-small) on the SRS-2 total, DSM-5 symptom subscale, and treatment subscale scores were found between males and females. Significant negative (moderate) correlations were found between the SRS-2 Social Cognition subscale and IQ and language scores, and between the SRS-2 Social Motivation subscale and receptive language scores for females only; no significant correlations were found for males.
Conclusion: results suggest equivalence of female and male children with high functioning ASD for the severity of the core symptom areas of ASD, at least with regard to SRS-2 symptoms. However, for females, results also suggest that language abilities and receptive language skills may play a unique role in the understanding and interpretation of social cues in females.
Donnelly et al. (2018)
Age Range: 6-12 years
Sample Size: 120
Topics Addressed:
Comparison of parent and teacher SRS-2 ratings for high functioning children
Outcome:Donnelly et al. (2018)
As in other studies examining parent-teacher concordance, the magnitude of association between parents’ and teachers’ scores were low to moderate, although both groups provided ratings of elevated ASD symptoms for the children. Parents’ scores were consistently significantly higher than teachers’ and were not moderated by the child, parent, or teacher variables examined.
Conclusion: multiple sources of information are critical in ASD evaluations, and informant discrepancies on the SRS-2 are common. Taking a conservative approach by viewing elevated scores (T > 60) from either informant may be the best option for detecting children in need of full evaluation. Moreover, when the score differences are > 10 T score points, additional input from raters should be obtained.
Nelson, Lopata, Volker, Thomeer, Toomey, & Dua (2016)
Age Range: 4-18 years
Sample Size: 264
Topics Addressed:
Factor structure and internal consistency of teacher ratings
Outcome:Nelson, Lopata, Volker, Thomeer, Toomey, & Dua (2016)
Results of the exploratory factor analysis yielded a four-factor correlated solution; the structure was different than found in previous studies but this study was unique in that it focused on teacher ratings (whereas all but one previous study has focused on parent ratings or combinations). The individual factors and total score demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency reliability for screening purposes. When applying the lowest pre-established cut score (T > 60; minimum indication of clinically significant symptoms/impairments), 85% of the sample had ratings in that range or higher (more severe).
Conclusion: internal consistency was adequate, and cut scores proposed by test authors yielded adequate screening sensitivity when SRS-2 teacher forms are used.