Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) represent a class of highly prevalent developmental disabilities that have been characterized by deficits in communication and social interaction, and by the presence of restricted and/or repetitive behaviors (APA, 2013; APA DSM-5 Task Force 2013; e Couteur, et. al., 1989; Lord, Rutter, Le Couteur, 1994). Individuals with ASD also display difficulties in sensory processing and uncommon responses to sensory stimuli across multiple sensory domains (Iarocci & McDonald, 2006; Bebko et al., 2006). The recently revised diagnostic criteria (Schopler, Reichler, & Renner, 1986; APA DSM-5Task Force 2013) classify that ASD children often show with abnormal sensory processing, including obvious struggle in sensory information integration (Bebko et al., 2006; Mongillo et al., 2008; Foss-Feig et al., 2010; Kwakye et al., 2011).

Although, there are some diagnostic instruments for autism, such as the ADI-R (Autism Diagnostic Interview), the ADOS-G (Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule), the screening self-monitoring tools, which can assess whether individuals with normal intelligence have autism traits, were not developed until 2000.

Some standardized diagnostic tools alone are not able to identify whether an individual with normal intelligence belongs to the 'autistic traits' or 'the broader phenotype', and due to the need to develop self-management measures, Baron-Cohen et al. (2001) developed the 'Autism spectrum Quotient (AQ)’. It is used for both scientific reasons (e.g., establishing the superiority of individuals who are "affected" and those who are not "scientifically" compared) and potentially applied reasons (e.g., to help individuals make recommendations for a complete diagnostic assessment).

The AQ is mad up of 50 questions, including 10- questions each assessing 5 different aspects, social skill, attention switching, attention to detail, communication, and imagination. The items of the questionnaire were selected from the domains in the “triad” of autistic symptoms (APA, 1994; Rutter, 1978; Wing & Gould, 1979), and from demonstrated areas of cognitive abnormality in autism. Each item scores 1 point if the person responds with autistic-like behavior either slightly or strongly. To avoid a response bias, the questions are comprised with half of “disagree” responses, and the half “agree” responses. The final version of the AQ has a forced-choice format, can be self-administered, and is straightforward to score since it does not depend on any interpretation in the scoring (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001).

The first study of Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) was conducted by Baron-cohen et al., (2001), with 58 autistic adults with Asperger (AS) / High functioning (HFA), 174 randomly selected adults, 840 college students (Cambridge University), and 16 British Math Olympiad winners were divided into groups. According to this study, AS/HFA group showed higher scores than the control group (normal adult) as expected by the researchers, while males in the control group (normal group) showed significantly higher scores than females. There was no difference in the AQ scores according to gender in the AS/HFA group. In the general student group, science majors showed higher AQ scores than students majoring in social sciences or humanities. Through this study, the researchers obtained useful cutoff scores, with more than 79.3% of the AS/HFA group having a score of 32 or higher in the normal group, and 32 as the autistic group.

Since the study in the United Kingdom, many countries have studied the reliability and validity of the Autism Spectrum Index in each country's language. Wakabayashi et al. (2007) developed the Japanese version of the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ). They were divided into three groups: 57 AS/HFA adults, 194 randomly selected general adults, and 1050 college students. Japanese study was very similar to those of previous UK study, but the AQ scores in the three groups were two points higher than in the UK, and the AQ scores in the control group (normal group) and the student group were statistically respectively. However, the difference between the AQ mean score of the AS/HFA group and the normal group was similar for both countries, and 33 points were reported as the cutoff score in the Japanese study, unlike the UK where the cutoff score was 32 points.

Several studies in other cultures have reported similar results, which supports that the severity of the clinical severity of autism is expressed in a very similar way across cultures of other countries. In addition, among the many meta-analyzes of AQ, Ruzich et al. (2015) analyzed the existing AQ studies, and the AQ mean scores of the control group (normal group) ranged from 11.6 to 20 . In the autistic group, there were 27.6 and 41.14 points, respectively. The results of many studies on the ‘Autism Spectrum Quotient’ demonstrate the reliability of AQ, and the link between AQ scores and scientific competence is consistent with Baron-Cohen. (Baron-Cohen et al., 2003, Baron-Cohen, 2015)

Every year, people who are at risk or diagnosed with autism are increased in Korea; however, there is no brief self-administered scale for measuring the degree to which any individual adult with normal IQ may yet. Additionally, several versions of the Korean version of the Autism Spectrum Index have been used, but there has been little research on reliability and validity so far, so we could not provide a concrete basis for the use and interpretation of this questionnaire.

This study is aimed to develop the Korean- version AQ and to verify the questionnaire, then explore the autistic tendency of general Korean adults using the Korean-version AQ. Also, this study examines the issue of whether the AQ, which has been proven by previous studies, is culturally independent or non-independent in the Korean culture as replicating the previous studies (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001; Wakabayashi et al., 2007) with similar methodology, and explore the differences among Korea, UK, and Japan.

The questions of this study were following as:

1) What are the total scores of Group 1 (University students) and Group 2 (General adults)? 2) What are the differences between Group 1 and Group 2? and, 3) What are the differences in the autistic traits among Korean, UK, and Japanese adults?

The present study explored the tendency of autistic traits in Korean adults, including the university students and general adults using a translated Korean-version of the AQ questionnaire, and the results were compared with the previous UK and Japanese studies. The results of this study indicated a couple of interesting features and the suggestions.

First, the Korean results illustrated that Group 1 (student group) showed lower total AQ scores than Group 2 (general group), and males demonstrated slightly higher total AQ scores than females in both groups while there was no significant gender differences. These results were consistent with the previous studies from Ruzich et al. (2015) and Wheelwright et al. (2010). In subscales results, Group 2 showed the significant gender differences in Imagination and Local details while Group 1 presented no significant gender difference. The pattern of results in subscales presented similarities with the Japanese study in somewhat.

Second, the group comparison in Korean data displayed that there was a significant group difference in Total AQ, Communication, and Imagination between the groups. These results might be impacted by the significant difference of age between two groups and imbalanced the gender ratio. Also it can be illustrated that older Korean showed the autistic traits than younger Koreans. To confirm this tendency, the future study should include more participants and should be matched to the age range in each group.

Third, the Korean mean total AQ in both groups exhibited slightly higher than other two countries, while there was no significant statistical difference. But, the propensity of this result should be confirmed and analyzed in the future AQ study. The one interesting point was that Korea and Japan are found to have a somewhat similar tendency in their scores compared to the UK, as mentioned earlier. The score of each subscale in Korea and Japan tended to increase in the following order; Communication, Imagination, Social skills, Local details, and Attention switching. The results are compared in more detail through subsequent studies but can be interpreted as cultural differences between Asia and Europe or English-speaking country at this point. To sum up, this study descibed that there were no statistically significant differences among the three countries in terms of total AQ and subscale score and the results of present study correspond to the previous UK and Japanes study. It can suggest that the AQ questionnaire could be used culture – independently.

Although more follow-up research is required, this study confirms the possibility of validation and reliability of the use of the Korean-version AQ questionnaire.

In order for this preliminary study to be meaningfully used in the area of communication disorders, the following points are suggested. First, the follow-up study should include the individuals with ASD and investigate the definite differences between the ASD and neuro-typical individuals. Some previous studies suggested that the AQ can be useful to gauge the appropriateness of the referral (Wakabayashi et al., 2007; Baron-Cohen et al., 2001; Wheelwright et al., 2010). And simultaneously, it said to whether the use of the AQ as a population screening tool should be more studied. Second, it is necessary to sufficiently homogenize the age, gender ratio, occupation type, and subjects that can affect outcomes. Finally, we also need to confirm the correlation between other evaluation tools and the AQ questionnaire in the future study.