1

Application of the Empathizing Systemizing Theory On Above-Level High School Students

Advanced Placement Research

May 1, 2023

Word Count: 5189

 2

Application of the Empathizing Systemizing Theory On Above-Level High School Students

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), a developmental disorder caused by a range in neuro

variance, can significantly impact many facets of life, especially in adolescence. Adolescent and

young adult life is rapidly evolving, especially within education, with concerningly rapid

increases in maladjustment, surfacing as suspension, dropping out, self-harm, suicide, or many

other psychological health problems (Huang, 2022). Because of these worsening conditions,

research covering the relationships between psychological disorders and education has been

widely covered, identifying the academic and social capabilities of those diagnosed with them.

The Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders provided an example of such research,

revealing that ASD experiences increased levels of stigmatization; college students diagnosed

with ASD experience consistent levels of stigmatization, but interestingly, allistic college

students (those not diagnosed with ASD) experienced similar stigmatization when they revealed

having a “special interest”, a common trait appearing in autistics (Stockwell Et Al., 2021).

Similarly, the Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals released an

article detailing that the rate of neurovariance is increasing. At the same time, neurodivergent

inclusive education remains stagnant and teacher efficacy has not improved (Parsons Et Al.,

2016). By revealing exclusivity towards those with ASD, both among students and educators, the

need for destigmatization has grown more crucial than ever.

A primary form of the specific targeting of educational ableism towards ASD is the

stigmatic categorization of autistics as simply not being intelligent, and very little research makes

an effort to disprove this theory. Because of the suspected underdiagnosis of ASD and

overdiagnosis of ADHD in above-level students, scientific research focusing on

twice-exceptional autistics (autistic, above-level students) has been nearly impossible, with few
 3

attempts to conduct studies through alternative methods (Webb, 2019; Wiggins Et Al., 2019).

Research studying other psychological disabilities and above-level schooling, like ADHD and

giftedness, ascertain that the research capability exists, but it is just made more difficult by

underdiagnosis. Correlation studies that utilize nondiagnostic questionnaires measuring both

autistics and allistics to identify trends in ASD-related traits have been shown to effectively

provide an alternative to problems in scientific experimentation by permitting a larger sampling

population to receive similar results at the cost of a higher margin of error. This cost, however, is

permissible considering its lack of other options. By utilizing two of these questionnaires to

establish a correlation between traits of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and attendance in

Honors, Accelerated, AP, or IB classes in Northeast Georgia high school students, the

stigmatization of ASD intelligence levels and “special education” can be refuted.

Simultaneously, the relationship between developmental disabilities and higher education may

provide evidence to inquire about higher efficacy levels in educators for neurodivergent students

beyond below-level courses.

Literature Review

How Honors Students Differ from On-Level Students

Being identified as an above-level student from a young age is often done by placing

students under the label of gifted. Though not always, ‘gifted’ students are often the ones who

grow up displaying traits that differentiate them from others, often incentivizing them to partake

in honors, AP (Advanced Placement), IB (International Baccalaureate), Accelerated, or any other

higher-level class(es). Dabrowski, a renowned Polish psychologist, formulated a theory behind

what typically places students in these gifted categories as outlined by Sisk (2022), an

international consultant of gifted education at Lamar University; the theory suggests that to
 4

display higher levels of understanding in education, there are often increased emotional

intensities known as overexcitabilities which provide differentiation in physical, sensual,

creative, intellectual, and emotional understandings. The unique overexcitabilities are known to

“​​cause inner turmoil but can result in creative endeavors as well as advanced emotional and

ethical development”, implying that these emotional variations are something that both boosts

one’s intelligence while also providing setbacks in generalized mental health and possibly social

settings as compared to on-level students (p. 98). Beyond Dabrowski’s theory, honors students

have also been identified as displaying increased levels of attention. MacEachron (2018), a Ph.D.

in school psychology, elaborated that contrary to common belief, many ‘gifted’ students display

a phenomenon of hyper-focusing, the concept of displaying an increased scope of concentration

on topics that the student displays interest in. The concept of hyper-focusing has been linked to

displays of strong fixation to a point of hindrance in societal or familial relationships, displaying

yet another example of how the traits that enable students to display higher levels of academic

achievement are the very ones that may isolate themselves from others.

Neurodiversity and Honors Classes

Neurodiversity itself is simply a difference in a range of brain functions typically defined

by neurological disorders like Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), though can include almost any

other mental disorders like attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),

obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), etcetera. Within education, neurodiversity often comes

into play by implementing individualized education plans (IEPs) for students to provide a legal

document that provides insight into children’s needs regarding special education. Documents like

IEPs are remarkably similar to the concept of marking gifted students within school districts.

This understanding is enhanced by Matthews (2021), the founding director of the Hunter College
 5

Center for Gifted Studies and Education, who explained the similarities between typical

neurodiverse individuals with higher levels of intellectual ability; according to her, giftedness is

a type of neurodiversity; they both display different levels of understanding that separate them

from neurotypical students in a clearly defined way. By blurring the lines of neurodiversity’s

definition, the stigma of neurological disorders being inversely related to academic success can

be dismantled.

The newfound research blending the concept of giftedness with neurological differences

has been growing as a contemporary topic of research, with growing interest in finding

relationships between disorders like ADHD and academic ability being formed based on

hyperfixations (MacEachron, 2018). In addition, the new research has brought into light the

modern concept of understanding twice-exceptional students, defined as students who display

levels of higher intelligence coupled with learning disabilities that often require special attention.

Bringing this new concept and relationship into fruition has established the foundation of

research regarding the necessary destigmatization of neurological differences within academics.

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in Education and Academic Ability

There are many studies regarding academic ability, specifically in the field of increased

intellectuality, alongside disorders like ADHD have been done. However, research regarding

social neurodevelopmental disorders like ASD in the classroom has not been done as extensively.

Although most neurological disorders receive educational-focused research intending to

stereotype their academic ability as subjectively substandard, research with attention-deficit

disorders is becoming more commonly done with objective facts rather than preconceived

notions. Because of this, disorders like ADHD recieve positive scientific perceptions whereas the

stigma surrounding ASD is unchanged. As elaborated on by MacEachron (2018), sustained

 6

attention in settings of interest combined with changes in efficiency and creativity are associated

with both ADHD and higher intellectual ability. MacEachron’s study was conducted with the

intent of explaining how attention deficiency may have advantages in the field of education when

attention is facilitated in an academic setting. Following suit with the implications done by

MacEachron (2018), similar information can be said about students with ASD. The Medical

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders has found that individuals with ASD experience

similar portrayals of intense fixations on points of passion known as special interests, which can

have both positive and negative effects on intellectual functioning (Nowell, 2021). This variance

in intellectual ability has been further analyzed by Arnold and Reed (2019) in the British Journal

of Special Education where they found that the mean IQ for verbal Autistic students (72.30) is

lower than those who are neurotypical (86.62), but the standard deviation and range for IQ of

verbal autistic students (20.17 and 48-151 respectively) surpass those of neurotypical students

(18.07 and 45-111 respectively). Somewhat disproving the validity of the variance in all cases of

ASD, however, the research also showed that for nonverbal Autistic students, the mean, standard

deviation, and range of their IQs are typically lower than neurotypical students. (Arnold & Reed,

2019). These statistics imply that for most neurological disorders, common symptoms can have

both beneficial and disadvantageous effects in the field of education depending on how they are

handled.

The Autism Quotient Questionnaire and Similar Nondiagnostic Surveys

A main source of the lack of research regarding correlative ASD studies is the lack of

easily accessible surveys that measure traits of Autism without a blatant diagnosis. Although

there is research that does involve diagnoses or questionnaires with the intention of elements of

diagnostics, they often limit the ability to accurately measure similarities and differences with
 7

autism that accounts for undiagnosed or allistic (that meaning non-autistic) individuals who still

display developmental symptoms that are common in ASD. To solve these problems,

Baron-Cohen Et Al. (2001), researchers at the Cambridge Autism Research Centre, formulated

the Autism Quotient (AQ); the AQ is a questionnaire designed to measure the portrayal of ASD

traits in an individual based on their self-assessment. Due to the nature of the survey, it has been

able to increase the number of replicable studies based on ASD. However, its lack of awareness

has still greatly limited the ability for developmental studies. A further limitation offered by the

questionnaire is its fundamental bluntness; although the intention of the Quotient is to measure

Autistic traits, the social apprehension towards being told one displays elements of ASD deters

subjects from engaging in someone's studies, creating a prominent response bias and an ethical

dilemma. To aid the problem and offer symptom-specific questionnaires, Baron-Cohen Et Al.

(2006) went on to explain the Empathy (EQ) and Revised-Systemizing (SQ-R) Quotient

Questionnaires; these Quotient tests similarly predict the expression of autistic traits, but their

intention was not designed solely on measurements of autism. The Empathy and

Revised-Systemizing Quotients were originally based on showing differences in ‘brain types’ on

numeric scales (1-80 for the EQ, 1-150 for the SQ-R). To prove the effectiveness that the EQ and

SQ-R have in predicting scores on the AQ, Wheelwright performed a correlational study, finding

that the EQ had an inverse relationship with the AQ while the SQ-R had a positive correlation

with it; these correlations offer clear credibility to researching how traits of ASD are expressed

without deterring subjects from participation. Scoring below a 30 on the EQ and above a 75 on

the SQ-r was seen to be most generally indicative of ASD. Although the nondiagnostic

measurements of ASD expression are inexact, the current Quotient tests offer a foundation for
 8

how researchers can begin to strengthen the exploration of ASD and its effects in different facets

of life.

Methodology

The Questionnaire

To address the possibility of a relationship between Autistic tendencies and academic

courses, the researcher is utilizing the Empathizing Systemizing (E-S) Theory. This theory was

designed to suggest a correlation between scores on the Empathy Quotient (EQ) and Systemizing

Quotient (Now Revised-Systemizing Quotient (SQ-R) to remove traditional biases)

Questionnaires and scores on the Autism Quotient. (Baron-Cohen, 2009). Most of the method

intends to reflect other correlational studies involving the Autism Quotient (AQ) and other

qualitative variables, but the researcher is shifting to the EQ and SQ-R- both of which were

proposed by Baron-Cohen and his collaborators for different purposes.

The purpose of the EQ and SQ-R as opposed to the AQ in this study is to prevent the

direct association between autism and the participants. Although the intention of the study is to

measure the correlation between ASD and student demographics, the implication of diagnosis

would skew results by employing a response bias from neurotypical students as well as ethical

concerns regarding violations of participant psychomedical privacy/confidentiality and concerns

of possible association.

The usage of the questionnaires (EQ and SQ-R) are specifically selected as a means of

applying an accessible and simple quantitative analysis of the participants’ levels of associations

with either empathy, systemization, or both. While an experimental model is typically used for

this discipline, a controlled environment leaves significant room for error based on response
 9

biases and disingenuous results, leading the researcher to conduct a study where the participants’

behaviors are simply recorded by the Quotient tests.

The results from the Quotients are indicative of their ‘brain type’, meaning their tendency

to empathize, systemize, both, or neither, with lower scores indicating a lower association with

the namesake topic (that is, either empathy or systemization). The questions for both Quotients

ask participants to respond with ‘definitely agree’, ‘slightly agree’, ‘slightly disagree’, or

‘definitely disagree’ in response to personal statements (e.g. “I like music or book shops because

they are clearly organized” and “I dream most nights”) (Wheelwright et al., 2006). Aside from

randomly added ‘control questions’ to avoid a response bias, half of the statements are designed

to produce statements of agreement and the rest of disagreement- either scoring 1 point (mild

agreement/disagreement) or 2 points (strong agreement/disagreement) depending on the type of

question.

Sampling And Confidentiality

The participants for the study were selected on a volunteer basis in Hall County, Georgia.

The researcher contacted school administrators and requested to promote the study during school

for virtual participation. When permitted, the researcher intended to further email any interested

teachers and request the opportunity to present the study to individual classes or offer flyers to

post around the school. The researcher also posted a Google Form including the Quotient tests

and assessment on virtual school announcements and club social media. Any high school

students ages 14 through 18 regardless of neurological diagnoses or academic courses are offered

an opportunity to participate virtually. For the sake of accurate comparison with prior research,

individuals who are taking above-level courses are primarily sought after by focusing on

promoting the study in above-level courses.

 10

Although, by only inviting participants who willingly signed up to partake in the study,

the sampling method does contain a volunteer bias, the psychological nature of the study

ethically disallows for random sampling of students below the age of 18 for the sake of their

medical confidentiality. By using a correlational model, the study accounts for this bias by

allowing for the generalizability of the data and suggestions for future controlled

experimentation.

To maintain confidentiality throughout the process, the names of the participants are kept

entirely private, only providing the optional opportunity to give their email if interested in

receiving study results. If they chose to share their email, it was held in a confidential folder with

their respective scores, courses, and other responses only visible to the researcher.

Assessment Procedure

The primary procedure consisted of two distinct steps: response to the Quotient

questionnaires and a short form to assess both the score individuals receive and their classes. The

entirety of the procedure occurred virtually.

The procedure is largely modeled after research from the University of Cambridge and its

similar studies utilizing the Empathizing-Systemizing theory (Auyeung Et Al., 2012). Auyeung

Et Al.’s study is not only an exemplary usage of the Empathizing-Systemizing theory applied to

similar correlational ASD research, but it also demonstrates the reliability and consistency found

in the Quotients. All participants could choose to take either the EQ (on psychology-tools.com)

or the SQ-R (on embrace-autism.com), or they could opt to take both.

The assessment and Quotients were all on a Google Form linked to the slide sent out on

school-wide announcements. Because of the opportunity for anonymity and the schoolwide

survey waiver, students were allowed to partake in the study without parental permission.
 11

Through the form, they took their preferred Quotient test(s) and proceeded through the

‘post-Quotient questionnaire’. This questionnaire contained the following prompts:

How old are you?

Do you currently take any Honors, Accelerated, IB (International Baccalaureate), or AP

(Advanced Placement) classes?

(If Applicable) How many Honors, Accelerated, IB, and/or AP classes do you take?

(Mark 8 if you currently take any more than 7)

Then, depending on their self-reported courses, participants were blocked and asked which

Quotient test(s) they took and their exact numeric score(s).

Data Testing Procedure

The use of simplified quantitative scores allows for a simplistic analysis of a correlation

using univariate statistics. The researcher compared and analyzed possible tendencies by

separating the self-reported survey results into above-level SQ-R scores and above-level EQ

scores. This recorded data was compared to general and ASD population data found by

Wheelwright Et Al. (2006) to analyze if the difference in scores is statistically significant. To do

so, the researcher conducted a two-sample t-test with both means, standard deviations, and

population sizes, hypothesizing that the gifted EQ levels would be lower and the SQ-R scores

would be higher, as these deviations imply higher AQ scores.

Findings

After dispersing the questionnaire throughout a couple schools, 66 responses from high

school students with a mean age of 15.39 were obtained. 55 out of the 66 students self-reported

taking above-level classes, with the mean number of classes being 4.84. Of these 55 responses,

51 people took the EQ and 30 people took the SQ-r, with some overlap caused by people who
 12

took both. Of these 55 above-level responses, 5 (4 from the EQ, 1 from the SQ-r) had to be

removed due to highly improbable or impossible responses (scores of 0, 1000, or similar

abnormal results) resulting in either lack of understanding or extreme response bias, leaving 50

valid responses that would not distort statistical analyses.

To perform the two sample t-tests with the given sample populations, the population

mean values had to first be established. By incorporating previously found data of the Quotient

scores within the typical populations with x̄SQ-R=55.6 and sSQ-R=19.7 (sample means and standard

deviation of typical SQ-R scores, respectively) and x̄EQ=44.3 and sEQ=12.2 (sample mean and

standard deviation of typical EQ scores, respectively), the populations were able to be defined

(Wheelwright Et Al., 2006). Using these, the conditions of significance testing were measured:

normality, independence, randomness, and sample/population ratio; the sampling distributions

are approximately normal (since the sample sizes are both 30 or greater); the two samples are

largely independent as one is from an entirely separate study; the samples are not entirely

random, as the method entailed volunteer based participation, but the t-test may proceed with a

slightly larger margin of error; and the populations are both at least tenfold larger than the

samples, as the typical population from Wheelwright Et Al. is above 17610 and the Northeast

Georgia high school student population is larger than 500.

The first test done was the Revised-Systemizing Quotient two-sample t-test. The

population means were defined as μSQ-R(t) being the true mean of the typical individual’s score on

the SQ-r and μSQ-R(a) as the true mean score on the SQ-r for above-level students in Northeast

Georgia high schools. The null hypothesis of this test, that being the hypothesis that the

above-level population has approximately equivalent mean scores as the typical population, is

μSQ-R(t)=μSQ-R(a), and the alternative hypothesis, the being the hypothesis of a statistically
 13

significant difference between the two groups, is that μSQ-R(t)<μSQ-R(a), as the higher score tends to

correlate with a higher definition of ASD-centric traits. After conducting the test, a p-value, that

being the probability of the differences in mean quotient scores between populations occurring

entirely by chance, was found to be approximately .0106, which is less than the standard

significance level, ɑ, of .05. Because the p value is less than ɑ, the null hypothesis was rejected,

which implies that there is convincing statistical evidence that the mean score of the Systemizing

Quotient is higher in the Northeast Georgia above-level student population than the typical

population.

Repeating this test for the Empathizing Quotient, the population means would be quite

similar to start with: μEQ(t), the true mean of a typical individual’s score on the EQ, and μEQ(a), the

true mean score on the EQ for above-level students in Northeast Georgia high schools. The

hypotheses would also be similar, with the null hypothesis being μEQ(t)=μEQ(a), and the alternative

hypothesis being μEQ(t)>μEQ(a), since lower scores tend to correlate with higher definitions of

ASD-centric traits. The p-value for this test was even lower, at .0038, which is also lower than

ɑ=.05, meaning that the null hypothesis was once again rejected and that there is convincing

statistical evidence that the mean score of the empathizing Quotient is lower in the Northeast

Georgia above-level student population than the typical population.

ɑ=.05 x̄ta sta n x̄a sa n p-valueb df c

EQ 44.3 12.2 1761 31.6/34.6* 17.0/14.3* 48/44* .0038 44.58

SQ-R 55.6 19.7 1761 63.7/65.9* 25.3/22.6* 30/29* .0106 23.71

a
Typical population derived from Wheelwright Et Al. (2006)
b
Derived from t-test
a
Degrees of freedom
 14

* Denotes Removed Improbable Scores (tested data)

Also using WheelWright Et Al.’s (2006) research of the mean and standard deviation of

SQ-r and EQ scores in a population with ASD, another set of 2-sample t-tests was modeled to

find if there was a significant difference between the scores of above-level students and autistic

individuals. By using the null hypotheses of their scores being equivalent (μSQ-R(ASD)=μSQ-R(a),

μEQ(ASD)=μEQ(a)) and the alternative hypotheses of (μSQ-R(ASD)≠μSQ-R(a), μEQ(ASD)≠μEQ(a)), both P-values

were found to be less than the significance level of .05, meaning that there is statistical evidence

of a difference between ASD scores and Northeast Georgia above-level high school students’

scores.

ɑ=.05 x̄asa sasa n x̄a sa n p-valueb df c

EQ 18.6 9.9 125 31.6/34.6* 17.0/14.3* 48/44* 4.87E^-9 58.16

SQ-R 77.2 23.8 125 63.7/65.9* 25.3/22.6* 30/29* .0207 43.61

a
Typical population derived from Wheelwright Et Al. (2006)
b
Derived from t-test
a
Degrees of freedom

* Denotes Removed Improbable Scores (tested data)

Analysis

The original intentions of this study were to identify a correlation between traits of ASD

and attendance in above-level classes through the Empathising Systemizing theory in a sample of

Northeast Georgia high school students, and this was mostly addressed with some limitations in

data collection. The primary findings did suggest a concurrence with the researcher’s hypotheses

with some deviation. Based on the significance tests, a relationship between ASD and
 15

above-level students in Northeast Georgia high schools was found, but it is much more nuanced

than previously expected. By using the significance level of .05, the tests did conclude that there

is approximately a 95% chance that the true mean scores of above-level students do tend to lean

closer towards autism than the neurotypical population, but the opposite is also true.

The Autism Quotient, as established by Wheelwright Et Al. (2006), is predictable

through scores on both the Empathising Quotient and Revised-Systemizing Quotient. Receiving

lower scores on the empathy scale and higher scores on the systemization scale work together to

signify higher scores on the Autism Quotient. By displaying significantly lower levels of

empathy (EQ) and significantly higher levels of systemization (SQ-R), above-level Northeast

Georgia high school students have a statistically higher score on the Autism Quotient.

The scores for the SQ-r and EQ for the experimental group lie somewhere between the

previously studied scores of typical and autistic populations by Wheelwright Et Al. (2006).

Although this does imply that there is a higher lean towards neurodivergent tendencies than the

norm, it does not necessarily suggest that rates of Autism are larger in an academically

above-level population. The data also show that although there is an inverse association between

general attendance of above-level courses and neurotypical scores, the number of courses shows

no significant impact on this difference. Although there was still an incredibly weak correlation,

the lack of statistical significance draws into question whether Autistic traits tend to indicate

more qualitative traits over quantitative levels in education. The lack of quantitative networking

does hinder some of the ability to draw effective and objective conclusions from the statistical

analysis, but the qualitative difference between neurotypical and above-level Northeast Georgia

High School Student EQ and SQ-R scores does carry sufficient evidence to prove at least some

answer to the expected hypothesis.

 16

The P-values of the t-tests seem to imply that although above-level Northeast Georgia

High School students tend to deviate more from neurotypical scores on the EQ, their scores on

the SQ-R are more similar to those of Wheelwright Et Al.’s autistic population. This could be

attributed to the significantly larger standard deviation that likely resulted in a lower response

rate on the SQ-R due to its increased length, but the data still suggest that in Northeast Georgia

High Schools, students in above-level courses tend to have closer systemization levels to autistic

individuals than they do empathy levels, though both are still significantly different from both

the mean Autistic scores and neurotypical scores, giving them their placement on the

hypothetical spectrum.

Conclusion

Limitations

Throughout the method process, the researcher found many drawbacks to an ideal

data-gathering and analysis process. Many of the limitations were discovered through

comparison with Wheelwright Et Al.’s research. Their research included controlled

administration of the Quotient tests and a larger sample size that limited the biases of

under-response, underrepresentation, and response biases prevalent in the performed study.

The majority of the setbacks emerged from the sampling process, while many measures

were taken to gather a diverse and large sample, the length of the Quotients deterred people from

engagement. Although a sufficient number of above-level students from Northeast Georgia High

Schools was gathered, likely derived from a higher intrinsic motivation found in higher-level

courses, very few students in on-level courses provided survey responses. This was further

accompanied by a restriction of the research to a small population of only a couple of schools

since many failed to respond to an inquiry about inviting more students, leaving the selected
 17

method of volunteer sampling to be extremely hindered. Had they responded, it's likely more

on-level students would have provided their scores on the EQ and SQ-R. This would have

allowed the researcher to base the analysis entirely on new data from the researcher’s population

instead of having to compare prior neurotypical data by Wheelwright Et Al. (2006) to the

above-level measurements.

A similar problem that occurred in sampling was response bias. Many students who were

offered the survey during school announcements took it offhandedly, providing false and/or

improbable responses far outside of the normal (or possible) range of scores. The number of

unserious responses further limited the sample size of the research, which necessitated the

researcher to remove invalid data at the risk of discrediting the validity of the analysis.

Implications

Traits of autism can manifest themselves in multiple ways, and the research results

conifrm this. Although being in above-level courses does not have an inherent homogeneity with

ASD level scores of the SQ-R and EQ, the statistical significance suggests that there is a

deviation from neurotypical scores suggests some relationship between ASD (from the AQ by

Baron-Cohen (2001)) and above-level course attendance in Northeast Georgia High Schools.

This suggestion implies that as there is a relationship between being in above-level academic

courses and the primary traits of ASD (systemization and empathy), there is likely a relationship

between being in these courses and some of the other traits and needs of ASD. Clinical child

psychologist Lovecky (2004) explained that there is almost a pseudo-trade-off with the impact of

disorders such as ASD and other learning deficit disabilities. These disorders can provide

neurological advantages based on symptoms like hyper fixations, special interests (Goldfarb Et

Al. (2009)), or even savant syndrome- which is an extreme talent or intelligence resulting from
 18

aptitudes of ASD, but they also have increased needs in the classroom to account for their

neurological deficits academically, socially, and cognitively.

By displaying that there is a significant difference between neurotypical scores and

above-level high school Northeast Georgia scores, the analysis found that within the population

of Northeast Georgia high schools, being in above-level classes has an inverse relationship with

scores on the EQ and a direct relationship with the SQ-R. The findings call for two primary

initiatives. The first is to abolish the stigma surrounding intelligence levels and ASD and similar

developmental disabilities as developed by Stockwell Et Al. (2021), which found that displaying

traits of ASD like special interests is often correlated to social prejudice. As the research

suggests, higher levels of intelligence, which are found in above-level courses, have a

statistically significant difference in two of the most impactful traits found in autistic individuals:

systemization and empathy, which demonstrates that these traits are expected to deviate in

above-level Northeast Georgia high school students. The second primary initiative is to

acknowledge a need for change in catering for above-level students and to find whether this

deviation in scores applies to above-level students worldwide- outside of just Northeast Georgia

and outside of just high school.

Future Directions

Further research is crucial to analyzing the impact of the discoveries made in this

research. Previous studies such as those of MacEachron (2018) and Matthews (2021) are just

some of the examples of how neurodiverse traits are equivalent to many of those found in

above-level students, discussing the ways that other neurodevelopmental disorders like ADHD

impact one’s intelligence, yet they lack multiple factors included in this study. The relevant

factors incorporated to improve prior research and facilitate new understandings involved a more
 19

specific and scientific approach. Prior research focused on broader understandings using

theoretical meta-analyses and very little independent research, which led to the field of

neurodiversity in above-level education being greatly generalized. However, although significant

data was collected in this research, its small scale failed to be applicable on a wider scale with a

larger context. Further research should be conducted on the bases of incorporating the following:

A larger array of traits: Sisk (2022) measured gifted ‘overexcitabilities’, which are found

to affect traits found in individuals with higher levels of intelligence in many ways similar to

those with ASD. This includes but is not limited to, physical, sensual, and cognitive differences

in development, all of which could be studied further to analyze whether these differences lean

toward those found in ASD. By incorporating these many other overexcitabilities and traits

identified by Sisk (2022) to exist between autistic and above-level students, the research could

facilitate increased capacities in analyzing their specific similarities and differences.

A larger sample: because of the limited population of above-level high school students in

Northeast Georgia, minimal data was found to understand whether the implications of this study

are relevant on a larger scale. To prevent this, further research could aim to study all students,

and individuals with higher levels of intelligence altogether in a much larger population to

increase research accuracy and reduce the possibility of confounding variables or biases in a

smaller, limited sample. Wheelwright Et Al.’s (2006) study utilizing the Empathizing

Systemizing theory demonstrated a need for larger sample sizes to garner an approximately

normal distribution for analysis.

An investigation of specific methods of catering towards above-level needs: to

understand if the social and cognitive deficiencies accompany the tendencies towards ASD found

in above-level high-school individuals in Northeast Georgia, research could be conducted to

 20

analyze whether methods of catering towards autistic students could similarly benefit the

education of their above-level samples. Prior research on catering to outdated understandings of

giftedness could be combined with research that analyzes the efforts that are being made to

provide methods of individual support for autistic individuals in education using traits of

systemizing and empathizing and general neurodiversity (Goldstein & King, 2021).

The results have provided further academic insight proving that there is some association

between traits of autism and traits found in above-level high school students in Northeast

Georgia, though its impact is understated and not fully understood without further development

into the gaps in research. Without confidence that there could be an association between directly

congruent scores between above-level students and ASD people, there are no applicable

conclusions that could be drawn reflecting a direct relationship, even with the difference between

neurotypical and above-level scores. The significance of the results, however, is defined by the

knowledge that higher levels of intelligence in Northeast Georgia high school students are

proven to lie at a point on the spectrum between those with autism and those without it.
 21

Resources

Arnold, S., & Reed, P. (2019). Measuring the word recognition abilities of children who are both

verbal and nonverbal with ASD using a traditional paper‐based and a novel digital test

format. British Journal of Special Education, 46(3), 340–360.

https://doi-org.proxygsu-shal.galileo.usg.edu/10.1111/1467-8578.12279

Auyeung, B., Allison, C., Wheelwright, S., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2012). Brief report: development

of the adolescent empathy and Systemizing Quotients. Journal of autism and

developmental disorders, 42(10), 2225–2235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1454-7

Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001). The

autism-spectrum Quotient (AQ): evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning

autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and

developmental disorders, 31(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005653411471

Baron-Cohen S. (2009). Autism: the empathizing-systemizing (E-S) theory. Annals of the New

York Academy of Sciences, 1156, 68–80.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04467.x

Deirdre V Lovecky. (2004). Different Minds : Gifted Children with AD/HD, Asperger

Syndrome, and Other Learning Deficits. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Goldfarb, Y., Gal, E., & Golan, O. (2019). A Conflict of Interests: A Motivational Perspective on

Special Interests and Employment Success of Adults with ASD. Journal of Autism &

Developmental Disorders, 49(9), 3915–3923.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-04098-7
 22

Goldstein, E., & King, K. (2021). Empathizing and Systemizing: Benefits of Cognitive Diversity

and Support Mechanisms for ASC Individuals. International Journal of Community

Diversity, 21(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-0004/CGP/v21i02/1-20

Huang, P. (2022). A Mental Disorder Prediction Model with the Ability of Deep Information

Expression Using Convolution Neural Networks Technology. Scientific Programming,

1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4664102

MacEachron, D. (2018, January 24). ADHD, Giftedness, and the Ability to Hyperfocus. Dr.

Devon MacEachron.

Https://Drdevon.com/Adhd-Giftedness-And-The-Ability-To-Hyperfocus/.

Matthews, D. (2021, July 31). Neurodiversity and Gifted Education. Psychology Today.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/going-beyond-intelligence/202107/neurodiver

sity-and-gifted-education

Nowell, K. P., Bernardin, C. J., Brown, C., & Kanne, S. (2021). Characterization of Special

Interests in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Brief Review and Pilot Study Using the

Special Interests Survey. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 51(8),

2711–2724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04743-6

Parsons, L. D., Miller, H., & Deris, A. R. (2016). The Effects of Special Education Training on

Educator Efficacy in Classroom Management and Inclusive Strategy Use for Students

with Autism in Inclusion Classes. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education

Professionals, 7–16.

Sisk, D. A. (2022). Managing Emotional Intensities of Gifted Students in Interdisciplinary Study.

Gifted Child Today, 45(2), 97–104.

https://doi-org.proxygsu-shal.galileo.usg.edu/10.1177/10762175211071006
 23

Stockwell, K. M., Bottini, S., Jaswal, V. K., & Gillis, J. M. (2021). Brief Report: Social Behavior

and Special Interests in the Stigmatization of Autistic College Students. Journal of

Autism & Developmental Disorders, 51(9), 3356–3364.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04769-w

Webb, J. T., Amend, E. R., Webb, N. E., Goerss, J., Beljan, P., & Olenchak, F. R. (2019,

September 13). Misdiagnosis and Dual Diagnosis of Gifted Children. Supporting

Emotional Needs of The Gifted.

https://www.sengifted.org/post/misdiagnosis-and-dual-diagnosis-of-gifted-children

Wheelwright, S., Baron-Cohen, S., Goldenfeld, N., Delaney, J., Fine, D., Smith, R., Weil, L., &

Wakabayashi, A. (2006). Predicting Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) from the

Systemizing Quotient-Revised (SQ-R) and Empathy Quotient (EQ). Brain Research,

1079(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.01.012p

Wiggins, L. D., Durkin, M., Esler, A., Lee, L. C., Zahorodny, W., Rice, C., Yeargin-Allsopp, M.,

Dowling, N. F., Hall-Lande, J., Morrier, M. J., Christensen, D., Shenouda, J., & Baio, J.

(2020). Disparities in Documented Diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder Based on

Demographic, Individual, and Service Factors. Autism research : official journal of the

International Society for Autism Research, 13(3), 464–473.

https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2255