While allowing for rapid recruitment of large samples, online research relies heavily on participants' self-reports of neuropsychiatric traits, foregoing the clinical characterizations available in laboratory settings. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) research is one example for which the clinical validity of such an approach remains elusive. Here we compared 56 adults with ASD recruited in person and evaluated by clinicians to matched samples of adults recruited through an online platform (Prolific
56 with high autistic traits and 56 with low autistic traits) and evaluated via self-reported surveys. Despite having comparable self-reported autistic traits, the online high-trait group reported significantly more social anxiety and avoidant symptoms than in-person ASD participants. Within the in-person sample, there was no relationship between self-rated and clinician-rated autistic traits, suggesting they may capture different aspects of ASD. The groups also differed in their social tendencies during two decision-making tasks
the in-person ASD group was less perceptive of opportunities for social influence and acted less affiliative toward virtual characters. These findings highlight the need for a differentiation between clinically ascertained and trait-defined samples in autism research.