Psychometric Properties of the Japanese Translation of the Detail and Flexibility Questionnaire (DFlex)
Résumé fourni par la source
Detailed attention and cognitive rigidity contribute to poorer social functioning and mental health. These cognitive functions can be measured using questionnaires or behavioral tasks but existing methods have limitations. The Detail and Flexibility Questionnaire (DFlex) addresses several of these limitations. This study developed a Japanese translation of the DFlex and collected valid evidence for its intended score interpretations. Sixty participants with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), 140 without ASD, and five participants who chose not to disclose whether they had an ASD diagnosis completed the Japanese version of the DFlex and the Japanese version of the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ). Data from 192 participants were analyzed. Internal consistency was good as was the internal structure, except for one item. McDonald’s omega and Cronbach’s alpha demonstrated good internal consistency and item–total correlation was acceptable, except for one item. The Japanese DFlex correlated strongly with the AQ Attention to Detail and Attention Switching subscales, supporting convergent validity. Regarding known-group validity, the ASD and non-ASD groups showed significant differences on the Cognitive Rigidity and Attention to Detail subscales. Based on its reliability and internal structural validity, the Japanese DFlex provides a better understanding of ASD-related cognitive traits for both research and clinical practice.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Psychometric Properties of the Japanese Translation of the Detail and Flexibility Questionnaire (DFlex)
- Date Crossref
- 25/03/2026
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- posted-content
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.