\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[greek,ngerman,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{Short communication: Initial Examination of Use of the Brief Observation
of Social Communication Change (BOSCC) across Home and School Contexts}



\author[1]{Stephanie S. Reszka}%
\author[2]{Anna Wallisch}%
\author[1]{Brian A. Boyd}%
\author[1]{Linda R. Watson}%
\author[2]{Nicolette Grasley-Boy}%
\affil[1]{The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Department of Allied Health Sciences}%
\affil[2]{University of Kansas Juniper Gardens Children's Project}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 26, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
This study investigated the potential influences of administration
context on the measurement of child skills over time. The BOSCC was
administered to preschool-aged children with autism at two time points
at school by trained research staff and at home by the parent. Children
showed improvements across all subscales and the total score over time.
The Social-communication and Core total scores yield similar information
in both contexts, but Restricted and Repetitive Behavior and Other
Abnormal Behavior subscales scores were not related. Further, subscale
and total scores are correlated between contexts at individual time
points but not over time. These results underscore the importance of
purposeful selection of measures and their administration context.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


Initial Examination of Use of the Brief Observation of Social
Communication Change (BOSCC) across Home and School Contexts

Abstract

This study investigated the potential influences of administration
context on the measurement of child skills over time. The BOSCC was
administered to preschool-aged children with autism at two time points
at school by trained research staff and at home by the parent. Children
showed improvements across all subscales and the total score over time.
The Social-communication and Core total scores yield similar information
in both contexts, but Restricted and Repetitive Behavior and Other
Abnormal Behavior subscales scores were not related. Further, subscale
and total scores are correlated between contexts at individual time
points but not over time. These results underscore the importance of
purposeful selection of measures and their administration context.

Keywords: Measurement, context, social-communication, home, school

Social-communication (SC) functioning is a core diagnostic feature of
autism and is pivotal to the development of later language and social
interaction skills (e.g., Mundy, et al., 1994). Due to the critical
nature of SC skills, many interventions target this feature of autism;
however, one major challenge in autism research is finding sensitive and
reliable outcome measures. This is especially true for SC because these
behaviors are often very subtle and difficult to observe (Anagnostou et
al., 2015; McConachie et al., 2015).

One novel and increasingly used measure of SC is the Brief Observation
of Social Communication Change (BOSCC) (Grzadzinski, et al., 2016), a
play-based assessment specifically designed to measure change across
three subscales including: Social-Communication (SC); Restricted
Repetitive Behaviors (RRB), and Other Abnormal Behaviors (OAB). While
prior studies have demonstrated favorable psychometric properties (e.g.,
Gengoux et al., 2019; Kitzerow et al., 2016), there remain gaps in our
understanding of how contextual features of BOSCC administration (e.g.,
interactive partner, administration setting) may impact its utility.

The BOSCC was developed to address the need for a measure of SC that can
detect subtle changes in these behaviors over time (Kim et al., 2019).
The recommended administration of the BOSCC is by a researcher blind to
child treatment status (Grzadzinski \& Lord, 2018); however, there have
been variations to the administration context (e.g., Carruthers et al.,
2021; Kitzerow et al., 2016; Frost et al., 2019). To our knowledge, only
one study evaluated the BOSCC as a measure of SC across play and snack
time routines in the home context (Frost et al., 2019). The BOSCC
demonstrated utility in measuring social-communication change during
both play and snack time contexts at home; however, resulting changes in
the restricted and repetitive behavior subscale were unclear. To date,
investigations of how both the interpersonal (i.e., play partner) and
environmental features (e.g., home and school) of the BOSCC
administration context influence measurement of change in social skills
overtime are lacking. There has not yet been a systematic investigation
of how the administration context and adult administrator affects child
scores on the BOSCC. Thus, the specific research questions of this study
include:

What is the association between scores when the BOSCC is administered in
a school context by unfamiliar research staff versus at home by a
parent?

Do BOSCC scores show similar changes over time across both
administration contexts?

\textbf{Method}

Data were collected as part of a project seeking to develop and pilot
test a website to promote implementation of the Advancing
Social-communication And Play (ASAP) intervention (see Boyd et al.,
2018) across home and school. While the BOSCC was administered as part
of this intervention study, the primary focus of this manuscript is the
potential differential effects of the administration context of the
BOSCC rather than the intervention itself.

\textbf{Participants~}

All 13 children (9 male) met criteria for ``autism spectrum disorder''
on the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS-2) and were 3-5 years old
(\emph{M} = 4.27 years) at enrollment. Eight were White, 3 Asian, 1
Black, and 1 White/Black; all identified as Non-Hispanic. The average
Early Learning composite raw score on the Mullen Scales of Early
Learning (MSEL) was 121.3 (\emph{SD} = 35.4, range = 68.0-166.0; N =
12). The average score on the CARS-2 was 37.0 (\emph{SD} = 6.5, range =
30.0-50.0), with scores from 30-37 indicating mild to moderate symptoms
and scores from 38-60 indicating severe autism symptoms. Data were
collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

\textbf{Description of BOSCC Administration}

The BOSCC can be administered in home or clinic/lab settings and
consists of a series of semi-structured contexts and materials which can
be modified based on researcher needs. The BOSCC is coded based on
videos broken into two segments with separate toy bins, each presented
for 5 minutes with the addition of 2 minutes of bubble play between the
segments, for a total observation of at least 12 minutes. Children are
presented with the toys and allowed to move freely around the room.
Suggested toys include cause-and-effect toys, construction or building
blocks, musical toys, pretend play materials, puzzles, and bubbles, and
it is recommended that there are variety of toys and some duplicates of
toys to encourage interactive play with the administrator.

\textbf{School Administration}

Research staff administered the BOSCC during pretest (September/October)
and posttest assessments (May/June) at the child's school. One member of
the research team was the administrator and another assisted with
timekeeping and videotaping. Administrations took place in a quiet
setting arranged by the teacher, usually a spare room within the school.

\textbf{Home Administration}

One or two research staff members visited the child's home, brought the
BOSCC kit, videotaped, and assisted with timekeeping. Research staff
used a script to provide directions to parents to ``play with the toys
in the kit as {[}they{]} normally would play'' and prompted transitions
(i.e., end of free play, start of bubble play). Other than these
instructions, parents were not otherwise trained to administer the
BOSCC, however the BOSCC has been used successfully in previous research
to code unstructured parent-child free play (Grzadzinski et al., 2016).
Parents selected a space with minimal distractions where they could play
uninterrupted with the child for the duration of the assessment.

\textbf{Coding and Reliability}

The videotapes from the home and school administrations were later coded
by trained research staff. BOSCC coding uses decision trees to score 15
items related to child SC behaviors (8 items), RRB (4 items), and OAB (3
items). Items are rated on a scale of 0-5, where lower scores indicate
better child performance. The two 5-minute coding segments are divided
to each include 4 minutes of play and 1 minute of bubbles. Trained
raters with established reliability (within 1-point for at least 80\% of
the items on each segment and Total Change score within 4 points on 3
consecutive practice videos) coded the videos. Forty-nine videos (i.e.,
26 at T1 and 23 at T2) were coded. Both raters independently coded every
fifth video (28.6\%) to monitor ongoing reliability. If not reliable on
a segment, raters would independently re-code and re-check reliability
(occurred on 5 videos). Once reliable, they met to discuss disagreements
to decrease potential drift in future coding.

\textbf{Data Analysis}

Pearson correlations (\emph{r} ) were used to assess the relation
between contexts for all subscales meeting normal distribution
assumptions, and the Shapiro-Wilk test and Spearman's \selectlanguage{greek}\emph{ρ} \selectlanguage{english}were used
for non-normally distributed subscales. Scores for T1 and T2 were
correlated independently. To evaluate the relation between change across
contexts, we calculated the standardized mean differences between T1 and
T2 for each subscale and total for each context. For SC, RRB, and Total,
we conducted dependent samples \emph{t} -tests and calculated
Hedges'\emph{g} , which includes a correction for small sample sizes.
For OAB, we conducted a non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank test due to
non-normality, and calculated the rank correlation effect size \emph{r}
. Finally, we calculated Pearson's \emph{r} for change scores between
contexts after determining all differences were normally distributed. We
conducted all analyses in R 4.0.3 using the \emph{rstatix} package.

\textbf{Results}

Higher scores on the BOSCC indicate more severe difficulties with
social-communication skills. Across all children assessed at each time
point, average scores were higher at Time 1 than Time 2 for both home-
and school-administered assessments (Table 1), indicating that children
showed improvements in SC skills, RRBs and OABs over time. Average
scores across all children at each time point were higher at T1 than T2
for both contexts (total Home Time 1 = 24.00 at Time 2 = 20.64; total
School Time 1 = 27.38 and Time 2 = 19.75), indicating improvements over
time.

Correlations between contexts at each time point (Table 2) showed
significant correlations between contexts for the SC subscale and Total
at both timepoints with the proportion of shared
variance\emph{(r\textsuperscript{2}} ) ranging from 67.2\% to
87.2\%\emph{.} The OAB subscale at T2 was also significantly correlated
between contexts; however, this correlation was much lower at T1.
Correlations between contexts for RRBs were moderate at both timepoints
but did not reach significance. These results suggest SC subscale and
Total scores could yield similar information regardless of
administration context, but the same is not true for the RRB or OAB
subscales.

\textbf{Discussion}

Novel findings indicated that the BOSCC performed similarly across home
and school contexts. Specifically, scores improved in both contexts, and
SC and total scores were highly related across contexts. Children showed
improvements across all subscales and the total score over the course of
the year. Interestingly, there were larger improvements in the school
context. Larger gains in the school context may be attributed to
children receiving the intervention in school. Behavioral changes may
not generalize across contexts (Gunning et al., 2009) so for children to
show improvements in multiple settings, an intervention may need to
include home-school collaborations.

For both timepoints, the SC subscale and total scores were highly
correlated across both contexts, unlike the RRB and OAB. This makes
sense given that some RRBs likely are context-bound or elicited by
specific stimuli (e.g., familiar adults, specific routines) that may be
more or less present in one context versus another, aligning with
previous research suggesting the presence of RRBs often differ between
contexts (Stronach \& Wetherby, 2014). Overall, the RRB subscale may be
more influenced by contextual features, whereas the SC subscale appeared
to be more stable.

While subscale and total scores were correlated at the individual
timepoints, we did not find a strong correlation between the changes in
child scores across contexts over time. Thus, researchers must carefully
consider the purpose of their study when selecting outcome measures and
measurement contexts. If the goal is to measure child skill acquisition,
measuring the behavior in a context similar to the intervention is
likely more important (e.g., if the intervention was implemented by a
teacher at school, then outcomes should be measured at school); however,
if the goal is to measure the generalization of skills, then measuring
across different contexts becomes more important.

\textbf{Limitations}

Data were collected as part of a pilot study. A larger-scale study would
provide more generalizability and allow for a more fine-grained
analysis.

The BOSCC authors caution that when coding parent-child interactions
during parent-mediated interventions, changes could be related to
changes in parent behavior rather than changes in child skills
(Grzadzinski \& Lord, 2018). Adult administrator behaviors may have an
influence on child behaviors during assessments (Tiede, 2019), thus
selecting an appropriate adult administrator is another important
consideration when collecting outcome measures.

\textbf{Conclusion}

There is a strong need within the field of autism research for
measurement tools that can be used consistently across various studies
(Bolte \& Diehl, 2013). The complexity of measuring SC behaviors makes
this an area of intense need as researchers require measures that are
sensitive to the nuances of SC behaviors and able to detect subtle
shifts in behaviors over time. Further, it is important to consider the
context of assessments; the measurement of outcomes should match the
context in which behavioral changes are expected. This study underscores
the importance of considering the context (i.e., both the administrator
and the setting) in measuring behavior changes.

\textbf{References}

Anagnostou, E., Jones, N., Huerta, M., Halladay, A. K., Wang, P.,
Scahill, L., Horrigan, J. P., Kasari, C., Lord, C., Choi, D., Sullivan,
K., \& Dawson, G. (2015). Measuring social communication behaviors as a
treatment endpoint in individuals with autism spectrum
disorder.\emph{Autism: the international journal of research and
practice} ,\emph{19} (5), 622-636.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361314542955

Bolte, E. E., \& Diehl, J. J. (2013). Measurement tools and target
symptoms/skills used to assess treatment response for individuals with
Autism Spectrum Disorder. \emph{Journal of autism and developmental
disorders} , \emph{43} (11), 2491-2501.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1798-7

Boyd, B. A., Watson, L. R., Reszka, S. S., Sideris, J., Alessandri, M.,
Baranek, G. T., \ldots{} \& Belardi, K. (2018). Efficacy of the ASAP
intervention for preschoolers with ASD: A cluster randomized controlled
trial.~\emph{Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders} ,~\emph{48}
(9), 3144-3162.

Carruthers, S., Charman, T., El Hawi, N., Kim, Y. A., Randle, R., Lord,
C., Pickles, A., Consortium, P., \& the PACT Consortium (2021). Utility
of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule and the Brief Observation
of Social and Communication Change for Measuring Outcomes for a
Parent-Mediated Early Autism Intervention. \emph{Autism research}
,\emph{14} (2), 411-425. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2449

Frost, K. M., Koehn, G. N., Russell, K. M., \& Ingersoll, B. (2019).
Measuring child social communication across contexts: Similarities and
differences across play and snack routines. \emph{Autism research}
,\emph{12} (4), 636-644. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2077

Gengoux, G. W., Abrams, D. A., Schuck, R., Millan, M. E., Libove, R.,
Ardel, C. M., Phillips, J. M., Fox, M., Frazier, T. W., \& Hardan, A. Y.
(2019). A Pivotal Response Treatment Package for children with Autism
Spectrum Disorder: An RCT. \emph{Pediatrics} , \emph{144} (3),
e20190178. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-0178

Grzadzinski, R., Carr, T., Colombi, C., McGuire, K., Dufek, S., Pickles,
A., \& Lord, C. (2016). Measuring Changes in Social Communication
Behaviors: Preliminary Development of the Brief Observation of Social
Communication Change (BOSCC). \emph{Journal of autism and developmental
disorders} , \emph{46} (7), 2464-2479.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2782-9

Grzadzinski, R., \& Lord, C. (2018). Commentary: Insights into the
Development of the Brief Observation of Social Communication Change
(BOSCC). \emph{Journal of mental health \& clinical psychology, 2} (5),
15-18. https://doi.org/10.29245/2578-2959/2018/5.1166

Gunning, C., Holloway, J., Fee, B., Breathnach, \selectlanguage{ngerman}Ó., Bergin, C. M.,
Greene, I., \& Ní Bheoláin, R. (2019). A Systematic Review of
Generalization and Maintenance Outcomes of Social Skills Intervention
for Preschool Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. \emph{Review
journal of autism and developmental disorders} , \emph{6} (2), 172-199.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-019-00162-1

Kim, S. H., Grzadzinski, R., Martinez, K., \& Lord, C. (2019). Measuring
treatment response in children with autism spectrum disorder:
Applications of the Brief Observation of Social Communication Change to
the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule. \emph{Autism: the
international journal of research and practice} , \emph{23} (5),
1176-1185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361318793253

Kitzerow, J., Teufel, K., Wilker, C., \& Freitag, C. M. (2016). Using
the brief observation of social communication change (BOSCC) to measure
autism\selectlanguage{english}-specific development. \emph{Autism research} , \emph{9} (9),
940-950. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1588

McConachie, H., Parr, J. R., Glod, M., Hanratty, J., Livingstone, N.,
Oono, I. P., Robalino, S., Baird, G., Beresford, B., Charman, T.,
Garland, D., Green, J., Gringras, P., Jones, G., Law, J., Le Couteur, A.
S., Macdonald, G., McColl, E. M., Morris, C., Rodgers, J., Simonoff, E.,
Terwee, C. B., \& Williams, K. (2015). Systematic review of tools to
measure outcomes for young children with autism spectrum
disorder.\emph{Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)}
,\emph{19} (41), 1-506. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19410

Mundy, P., Sigman, M., \& Kasari, C. (1994). Joint attention,
developmental level, and symptom presentation in
autism.\emph{Development and psychopathology} , \emph{6} (3), 389-401.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400006003

Stronach, S., \& Wetherby, A. M. (2014). Examining restricted and
repetitive behaviors in young children with autism spectrum disorder
during two observational contexts. \emph{Autism} , \emph{18} (2),
127-136.

Tiede, G., \& Walton, K. M. (2019). Meta-analysis of naturalistic
developmental behavioral interventions for young children with autism
spectrum disorder. \emph{Autism: the international journal of research
and practice} , \emph{23} (8), 2080-2095.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361319836371

\textbf{Tables}

\textbf{Table 1.} Summary of BOSCC Scores Across Time Points and
Contexts\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllllllllllll@{}}
\toprule
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Time 1\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Time 1\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Time 1\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Time 1\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Time 1\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Time 1\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Time 2\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Time 2\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Time 2\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Time 2\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Time 2\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Time 2\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Home\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Home\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Home\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
School\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
School\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
School\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Home\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Home\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Home\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
School\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
School\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
School\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Subscale\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{n}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{M (SD)}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{Range}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{n}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{M (SD)}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{Range}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{n}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{M (SD)}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{Range}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{n}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{M (SD)}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{Range}\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
SC\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
13\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
18.19 (7.34)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
7-30\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
13\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
18.27 (8.24)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
7.5-34.5\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
11\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
15.09 (7.53)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
4-31\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
12\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
13.04 (7.34)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.5-25\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
RRB\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
13\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
5.81 (3.26)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1.5-12\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
13\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
9.12 (3.07)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
4.5-15.5\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
11\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
5.55 (3.24)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1-9.5\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
12\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
6.71 (3.82)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1.5-14\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
OAB\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
13\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1.77 (2.35)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0-8.5\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
13\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1.04 (1.13)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0-3.5\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
11\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1.09 (1.74)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0-4.5\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
12\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.96 (1.47)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.05\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0-3.5\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
BOSCC Total (SC + RRB)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
13\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
24.00 (9.19)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
13-38.5\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
13\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
27.38 (10.51)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
14.5-48.5\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
11\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
20.64 (10.13)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
6.5-40\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
12\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
19.75 (10.52)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
5-39\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

\emph{Note} . SC = Social-Communication; RRB = Restricted, Repetitive
Behaviors; OAB = Other Abnormal Behaviors. RRB Item 9 excluded. Based on
average of Observations A and B.

\textbf{Table 2. \emph{Correlation Between Home and School Contexts for
BOSCC Subscales and Time 1 and Time 2}}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllllll@{}}
\toprule
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Time 1\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Time 1\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Time 2\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Time 2\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Subscale\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{r/r}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
95\% CI\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{r\textsuperscript{2}/r\textsuperscript{2}}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{r/r}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
95\% CI\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{r\textsuperscript{2}/r\textsuperscript{2}}\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
SC\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.852***\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
{[}0.567, 0.955{]}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.726\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.863**\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
{[}0.511, 0.967{]}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.745\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
RRB\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.328\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
{[}-0.273, 0.744{]}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.108\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.506\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
{[}-0.182, 0.861{]}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.256\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
OAB\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.389\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
{[}-0.237, 0.781{]}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.151\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.737*\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
{[}0.028, 1.000{]}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.543\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
BOSCC Total (SC + RRB)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.820***\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
{[}0.491, 0.944{]}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.672\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.934***\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
{[}0.737, 0.984{]}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.872\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

\emph{Note} . SC = Social-Communication; RRB = Restricted, Repetitive
Behaviors; OAB = Other Abnormal Behaviors. RRB Item 9 excluded. Based on
average of Observations A and B. SC, RRB, and BOSCC correlations
calculated using Pearson's \emph{r} ; OAB calculated using
Spearman's\selectlanguage{greek}\emph{ρ} \selectlanguage{english}due to non-normality. Bootstrapping used to calculate
95\% confidence intervals for Spearman's
\selectlanguage{greek}\emph{ρ.r\textsuperscript{2}/r\textsuperscript{2}}\selectlanguage{english} is the proportion of
shared variance between contexts. * \emph{p} \textless{} .05; **\emph{p}
\textless{} .01; *** \emph{p} \textless{} .001.

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

