Potential responses. In addition, a scoring guide was developed to provide common responses and their corresponding appropriate scores for each story on the PIT. The total number of correct responses and incorrect responses were tallied. Correct responses were weighted (as described below) to indicate the Ornipressin site assumed difficulty level of responses: a correct physical response received 1 point (sum = weighted physical total) and a correct ToM response received 2 points (sum = weighted ToM total). Incorrect responses of any type were given 0 points. The weighted physical total and weighted ToM total were added together for an overall total weighted score. Next, for ToM responses given by the respondent, the number of correct and incorrect emotion-ToM and correct and incorrect other-ToM responses were tallied to obtain raw scores in each sub-category. These were not included in the total weighted score, but were important to more specifically characterize ToM inference making abilities. Correlational Analyses–We also examined the performance of individuals with ASD in relation to commonly used measures of ToM. If the PIT was evaluating similar underlying cognitive and linguistic constructs, the performance of the individuals with ASD on the PIT should correlate with their performance on other measures that require making an inference about mental states. Participants were administered three well known measures of first and second order ToM: Sally and Anne (Baron-Cohen et al. 1985); John and Mary (Perner Wimmer 1985); and, Peter and Jane (Bowler 1992). Similar to Bowler (1997), an aggregate ToM score was tabulated by summing the number of correct belief, reality, and memory questions from each of the three ToM tasks (potential maximum score of 9 total points). Seven individuals did not have these three ToM measures that were administered within the PIT testing session and, therefore, were excluded from this specific analysis.J Autism Dev Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptBodner et al.PageParticipants also completed the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test-Revised (Adult or Child Version; Baron-Cohen et al. 2001). Participants viewed only the eyes of an individual and were asked to determine what the person was thinking or feeling by choosing one of four presented words. Adult participants completed 36 sets of eyes and were provided with a word definition booklet if needed. A child version of the test was administered to participants 15 years of age and under. Child participants completed a set of 28 sets of eyes, and the examiner read each word aloud. Performance on the PIT was also examined in relation to performance on the Test of Language Competence–Expanded (TLC-E; Wiig Secord 1989), a standardized assessment of metalinguistic abilities including making inferences that has been previously used in research in this area (e.g., Dennis et al. 2001; Minshew et al. 1995). The TLC-E GW9662 web consists of four subtests that sample metalinguistic abilities including the understanding of Ambiguous Sentences (participants select two different meanings for an ambiguous sentence from four printed choices), Making Inferences (examiner reads two statements that provide incomplete information about a single event and the participant chooses two of four possible explanations), Recreating Sentences (participants are orally and visually given three single words that wer.Potential responses. In addition, a scoring guide was developed to provide common responses and their corresponding appropriate scores for each story on the PIT. The total number of correct responses and incorrect responses were tallied. Correct responses were weighted (as described below) to indicate the assumed difficulty level of responses: a correct physical response received 1 point (sum = weighted physical total) and a correct ToM response received 2 points (sum = weighted ToM total). Incorrect responses of any type were given 0 points. The weighted physical total and weighted ToM total were added together for an overall total weighted score. Next, for ToM responses given by the respondent, the number of correct and incorrect emotion-ToM and correct and incorrect other-ToM responses were tallied to obtain raw scores in each sub-category. These were not included in the total weighted score, but were important to more specifically characterize ToM inference making abilities. Correlational Analyses–We also examined the performance of individuals with ASD in relation to commonly used measures of ToM. If the PIT was evaluating similar underlying cognitive and linguistic constructs, the performance of the individuals with ASD on the PIT should correlate with their performance on other measures that require making an inference about mental states. Participants were administered three well known measures of first and second order ToM: Sally and Anne (Baron-Cohen et al. 1985); John and Mary (Perner Wimmer 1985); and, Peter and Jane (Bowler 1992). Similar to Bowler (1997), an aggregate ToM score was tabulated by summing the number of correct belief, reality, and memory questions from each of the three ToM tasks (potential maximum score of 9 total points). Seven individuals did not have these three ToM measures that were administered within the PIT testing session and, therefore, were excluded from this specific analysis.J Autism Dev Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 September 01.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptBodner et al.PageParticipants also completed the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test-Revised (Adult or Child Version; Baron-Cohen et al. 2001). Participants viewed only the eyes of an individual and were asked to determine what the person was thinking or feeling by choosing one of four presented words. Adult participants completed 36 sets of eyes and were provided with a word definition booklet if needed. A child version of the test was administered to participants 15 years of age and under. Child participants completed a set of 28 sets of eyes, and the examiner read each word aloud. Performance on the PIT was also examined in relation to performance on the Test of Language Competence–Expanded (TLC-E; Wiig Secord 1989), a standardized assessment of metalinguistic abilities including making inferences that has been previously used in research in this area (e.g., Dennis et al. 2001; Minshew et al. 1995). The TLC-E consists of four subtests that sample metalinguistic abilities including the understanding of Ambiguous Sentences (participants select two different meanings for an ambiguous sentence from four printed choices), Making Inferences (examiner reads two statements that provide incomplete information about a single event and the participant chooses two of four possible explanations), Recreating Sentences (participants are orally and visually given three single words that wer.
