The study is from Hong Kong, so guessing that the ethnic/racial/cultural group is overwhelmingly continental South East Asian/Chinese/Cantonese/Hong Konger.
My guess about the weird over emphasis on the percent of females in the study is due to autism diagnoses and research concentrating around males.
Your oyher questions are a bit odd given you concede you haven't read the research article which may indeed answer all these questions. The OP can't replicate everything from the original article.
That said, neurotypical kind of implies being taken as the normative, default case, so I'm guessing they're assumed to be neurotypical if they don't have a diasnosis for anything else. I don't think there any way to diagnose someone as having no neurodivergence.
So the reason I asked the questions isn’t just that I didn’t read it, but that I can’t without paying for it.
I would assume that if you were doing a study on this, you would test anyone that is taking place in it if they are not already tested.
Otherwise, your data would be possibly based on a flawed datapoint.
That is what I am asking. Are we assuming they are neurotypical or was ever child tested.
>> I don't think there any way to diagnose someone as having no neurodivergence.
That doesn’t really make sense to me. I could see that it may not be cut and dry but if you can test for it you also get not.
I acknowledge that it is a spectrum and this is complicated. But I would think just assuming neurotypical also isn’t the answer either if you are studying this.
Oh yes, I agree with everything you said except on being able to test for being neurotypical. That's like expecting a test for being "not sick"/"not unhealthy"/"not physically abnormal". You can test for specific conditions or indicators and get negative results, but there's no test that can produce a positive result of "nothing wrong".
My guess about the weird over emphasis on the percent of females in the study is due to autism diagnoses and research concentrating around males.
Your oyher questions are a bit odd given you concede you haven't read the research article which may indeed answer all these questions. The OP can't replicate everything from the original article.
That said, neurotypical kind of implies being taken as the normative, default case, so I'm guessing they're assumed to be neurotypical if they don't have a diasnosis for anything else. I don't think there any way to diagnose someone as having no neurodivergence.