1. Abstract
The Adolescent Systemizing Spectrum Quotient (SQ) – Parent Version is a psychometric instrument designed to assess individual differences in systemizing tendencies among adolescents aged 12 to 15 years through parent report. Developed by Bonnie Auyeung, Carrie Allison, Sally Wheelwright, and Simon Baron-Cohen at the Autism Research Centre (ARC) at the University of Cambridge, the tool operationalizes the systemizing component of the Empathizing-Systemizing (E-S) Theory of cognitive profiles. Systemizing is defined as the drive to analyze, explore, and construct rule-based systems, enabling individuals to predict the behavior of deterministic phenomena and infer the underlying principles governing physical, natural, technical, spatial, and taxonomic systems. The parent-report format was specifically engineered to bridge the developmental measurement gap between childhood parent ratings (Child SQ) and adult self-report instruments (SQ and SQ-Revised), providing an objective observer-informant perspective during a developmental transition marked by rapid neurocognitive, social, and academic changes.
Comprising 55 items, the adolescent parent-report version uses a 4-point response scale ranging from “Definitely Agree” to “Definitely Disagree.” It yields a continuous score from 0 to 110 under the traditional Cambridge scoring algorithm, where higher scores signify elevated systemizing drive and hyper-systemizing traits. Psychometric validation studies demonstrate high internal consistency (Cronbach’s $\alpha$ typically between .84 and .90), solid test-retest reliability, and robust construct and discriminant validity. The instrument reliably replicates sexual dimorphic patterns—with adolescent males on average scoring significantly higher than adolescent females—and consistently differentiates autistic adolescents, who display hyper-systemizing cognitive profiles, from neurotypical peers. The parent-report SQ has proven essential across cognitive developmental research, psychiatric phenotyping, neurodevelopmental diagnostics, and longitudinal investigations into atypical cognitive architectures.
2. Keywords
Adolescent Systemizing Spectrum Quotient, Systemizing Quotient Parent Version, Empathizing-Systemizing Theory, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Psychometrics, Cognitive Phenotype, Extreme Male Brain Theory, Parent-Report Assessment, Neurodevelopmental Differences, Hyper-Systemizing, Sex Differences
3. Authors
The Adolescent Systemizing Spectrum Quotient (SQ) – Parent Version was developed by members of the Autism Research Centre within the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom:
- Bonnie Auyeung, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology, School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, and Affiliated Researcher at the Autism Research Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge. Email: [email protected].
- Carrie Allison, Ph.D. — Director of Strategy and Affiliated Lecturer, Autism Research Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge.
- Sally Wheelwright, M.Sc. — Senior Research Associate, Autism Research Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge.
- Simon Baron-Cohen, Ph.D., FBA, FMedSci — Professor of Developmental Psychopathology, Director of the Autism Research Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Email: [email protected].
4. Purpose
The primary purpose of the Adolescent Systemizing Spectrum Quotient (SQ) – Parent Version is to provide a reliable, ecologically valid, and psychometrically sound metric of systemizing drives in youth aged 12 through 15. The developmental trajectory bridging late childhood and middle adolescence represents a critical juncture for cognitive, executive, and social maturation. While self-report instruments are the standard for adult populations, early-to-mid adolescents vary widely in their capacity for meta-cognitive self-reflection, language comprehension, and objective self-appraisal. Adolescents may under-report or over-report idiosyncratic interests, obsessive cataloging, or routine-bound behaviors due to developing self-consciousness, social desirability pressures, or variable peer comparisons. Incorporating a standardized parent-report version captures ecological observations across home, domestic, and leisure environments where systemizing behaviors—such as mechanical fascination, timetable tracking, collection structuring, and insistence on rule adherence—frequently manifest.
Clinically, the instrument serves as an essential collateral tool in the assessment of Autism Spectrum Conditions (ASC). Under the neurocognitive model proposed by Baron-Cohen, autism is characterized not merely by deficits in social communication and empathy (systemic hypo-empathizing), but equally by intact, superior, or hyperspecialized abilities and interests in rule-governed domains (hyper-systemizing). The parent-rated SQ directly quantifies this non-social, cognitive strength-based facet of the autistic phenotype. It operationalizes Criterion B of the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ASD, which specifies restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities—including highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity or focus, and inflexible adherence to routines or ritualized patterns.
In academic and developmental research, the parent-report SQ allows researchers to test hypotheses regarding the sexual differentiation of the human brain, neurobiological correlates of cognitive style, and genetic or endocrine influences on cognition. The scale is frequently paired with the Adolescent Empathy Quotient (EQ) – Parent Version to compute discrepancy metrics ($D$-scores) that classify adolescents into discrete cognitive profiles: Type E (Empathizing dominant), Type S (Systemizing dominant), Type B (Balanced), Extreme Type E, and Extreme Type S. This typological framework enables researchers to study whether specific cognitive profiles predict academic trajectories (such as aptitude and engagement in STEM fields), neuroanatomical variation, and susceptibility to distinct psychopathological conditions.
5. Psychological Construct
Systemizing is conceptualized within cognitive psychology and psychometrics as the psychological drive to analyze, understand, predict, control, and construct systems governed by lawful, deterministic rules. A system, in this context, operates on fundamental input-operation-output relations (formalized as “IF [input $p$] occurs, AND [operation $q$] is applied, THEN [output $r$] will follow with deterministic certainty”). Unlike social-emotional interactions—which are fluid, non-deterministic, context-dependent, and inherently chaotic—systems are predictable because they adhere to underlying laws, constraints, and operational mechanisms.
The Adolescent Systemizing Spectrum Quotient captures multiple real-world manifestations of this construct across six interrelated systemic domains:
5.1. Mechanical and Technical Systems
This domain involves understanding the physical mechanisms and functional operations of machines, engines, electronic circuits, and digital equipment. In the parent-report SQ, this is reflected in items assessing an adolescent’s fascination with how machines operate (e.g., Item 26: “My child is fascinated by how machines work”), curiosity regarding telecommunications infrastructure (Item 14), interest in programming digital apparatuses (Item 8), and technical interest in computers and high-fidelity sound systems (Items 41 and 43).
5.2. Natural and Biological Systems
Natural systems comprise environmental phenomena, biological taxonomies, geographical configurations, and meteorological patterns. Individuals with high systemizing interest explore lawful patterns within the natural world. Items evaluating this facet observe whether the adolescent is fascinated by meteorological trends and weather variables (Items 11 and 47), tracks geographic river courses from source to sea (Item 33), discriminates tree species during nature walks (Item 39), or insists on identifying exact animal and plant species (Items 23 and 46).
5.3. Taxonomic and Collectible Systems
Taxonomic systemizing involves gathering, organizing, sorting, and categorizing objects according to distinct morphological, chronological, or structural criteria. The parent-rated SQ operationalizes this through questions tracking the adolescent’s historical or current propensity to curate collections (Items 9, 12, 17, and 34), examine differences across product catalogues (Item 15), and maintain fine-grained sub-categorical distinctions between related objects (Item 21).
5.4. Spatial, Topographical, and Route Systems
Spatial systems require the mental manipulation of coordinates, maps, routes, and geographic layouts. The instrument assesses this dimension via items concerning map reading comprehension (Item 6), navigation of transit timetables across multiple complex connections (Item 1), urban orientation and directional recall (Items 30 and 50), and sequential shopping route optimization (Item 53).
5.5. Abstract, Numerical, and Rule-Governed Formal Systems
Abstract systems include mathematical rules, syntactic structures, musical architectures, historical chronologies, and strategic games. The adolescent SQ captures this via items focusing on grammatical rule detection (Items 4 and 10), mathematical patterns and numerical governing principles (Item 49), exact retention of historical dates and figures (Items 19 and 37), strategic game interest such as chess (Item 20), musical structural awareness (Item 54), and genealogical mapping of family lineages (Item 18).
5.6. Social and Behavioral Rule-Based Systems
While empathy handles intuitive social reciprocity, high systemizers frequently approach social interaction through explicit rule derivation. The SQ parent version evaluates whether the adolescent attempts to extract algorithmic rules for social situations (Item 28), mentalizes peer groupings via explicit typologies (Item 5), prefers structured social activities governed by clear rules (Item 32), or experiences distress when established household or personal routines are disturbed (Items 22, 45, and 48).
6. Theoretical Framework
The conceptual foundation of the Adolescent SQ is rooted in the Empathizing-Systemizing (E-S) Theory and its neurodevelopmental extension, the Extreme Male Brain (EMB) Theory of Autism, pioneered by Simon Baron-Cohen and colleagues at the University of Cambridge. The theoretical architecture rests upon several interrelated neurocognitive postulates:
6.1. The Empathizing-Systemizing Dimension
The E-S model proposes that human cognitive variations are organized along two orthogonal psychophysiological dimensions: Empathizing (E), the drive to identify another person’s emotions and thoughts and respond with appropriate affective resonance; and Systemizing (S), the drive to analyze or construct rule-based systems. While empathizing enables successful adaptation to interpersonal environments that are unpredictable and non-linear, systemizing enables mastery over deterministic environments.
Plotting individual scores along standardized coordinates of $E$ and $S$ yields five discrete brain types:
- Type B (Balanced): $E \approx S$; the individual shows comparable aptitude and interest in both empathy and systemizing.
- Type E: $E > S$; empathizing capabilities and drives are significantly more developed than systemizing tendencies.
- Type S: $S > E$; systemizing drive and analytical rule-seeking significantly outpace empathizing abilities.
- Extreme Type E: $E gg S$; hyper-empathizing accompanied by low or impaired systemizing.
- Extreme Type S: $S gg E$; hyper-systemizing accompanied by marked deficits or atypicalities in empathy and social communication.
6.2. The Extreme Male Brain (EMB) Theory
At a population level, normative psychometric data consistently demonstrate sex differences: on average, females score significantly higher on measures of empathy (the Empathy Quotient), whereas males score significantly higher on systemizing measures (the Systemizing Quotient). The Extreme Male Brain theory hypothesizes that autism represents an extreme exaggeration of the typical male cognitive profile (Extreme Type S). Autistic individuals across the lifespan demonstrate an intense drive to analyze closed, deterministic systems, manifest clinically as narrow circumscribed interests, adherence to rigid routines, superior local visual-perceptual analysis, and heightened pattern recognition.
6.3. Neuroendocrine and Neurobiological Foundations
The biological framework underpinning the systemizing construct links cognitive profiles to prenatal neurodevelopmental programming. Longitudinal research from the Cambridge Fetal Testosterone Project demonstrates that elevated levels of fetal testosterone (measured via amniocentesis during second-trimester gestation) negatively correlate with social-communication metrics and facial emotion recognition, while positively correlating with systemizing scores, local perceptual acuity (e.g., performance on the Embedded Figures Test), and autistic traits in childhood and adolescence (Baron-Cohen et al., 2004; Auyeung et al., 2009).
Neuroimaging studies indicate that high systemizing correlates with structural and functional alterations in frontoparietal networks, including the intraparietal sulcus and lateral prefrontal regions responsible for logical reasoning, mechanical visualization, and executive manipulation. Furthermore, systemizing aligns with cognitive paradigms such as Weak Central Coherence Theory (Frith & Happé) and Enhanced Perceptual Functioning (Mottron), which emphasize superior processing of local features, granular details, and rule-consistent inputs over global, contextual gestalts.
7. Validity
The psychometric validity of the Adolescent Systemizing Spectrum Quotient (SQ) – Parent Version has been established across clinical and normative developmental cohorts:
7.1. Construct and Divergent Validity
Construct validity is evidenced by the instrument’s capacity to demonstrate the predicted sexual dimorphism and clinical divergence hypothesized by E-S theory. In normative validation samples (Auyeung et al., 2012), adolescent boys score significantly higher than adolescent girls ($p < .001$, effect sizes ranging from moderate to large, Cohen’s $d = 0.52 – 0.68$). Conversely, autistic adolescents score significantly higher than both typically developing males and typically developing females ($p < .001$, Cohen’s $d > 1.0$), confirming that hyper-systemizing remains a prominent feature of the autistic cognitive phenotype during adolescence.
Discriminant validity is supported by minimal or non-significant correlations between the parent-report SQ and the parent-report Empathy Quotient (EQ), demonstrating that systemizing and empathizing operate as independent cognitive constructs rather than opposite poles of a single unidimensional spectrum. Furthermore, systemizing scores exhibit negligible associations with general intellectual functioning (IQ) when evaluating individuals within normative intellectual ranges, indicating that the SQ captures a specific cognitive drive and processing style rather than general cognitive ability ($g$).
7.2. Convergent and Criterion Validity
The adolescent parent-report SQ demonstrates high convergent validity when compared against the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) – Adolescent Version, specifically correlating with the AQ subscales of “Attention to Detail” and “Restricted/Repetitive Behaviors.” It also demonstrates criterion-related validity through strong associations with adolescents’ real-world academic and vocational inclinations; adolescents with elevated parent-reported SQ scores exhibit significant preferences for and superior achievement in STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) relative to humanities.
8. Reliability
The Adolescent SQ Parent Version exhibits solid reliability across internal consistency, split-half metrics, and temporal stability:
- Internal Consistency: In the initial validation cohorts published by Auyeung and colleagues (2012), the parent-report SQ demonstrated high internal consistency across both clinical and non-clinical populations, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely exceeding $\alpha = .85$ (typically between $.85$ and $.91$ in combined samples). These values indicate strong item inter-relatedness without excessive item redundancy.
- Split-Half Reliability: Spearman-Brown corrected split-half coefficients for the 55-item battery exceed $.82$, demonstrating structural coherence across both halves of the instrument.
- Test-Retest Reliability: Longitudinal and repeated-measure testing over 3- to 6-month intervals shows substantial temporal stability ($r = .80 – .87, p < .001$), confirming that parent ratings of systemizing drive reflect enduring cognitive and behavioral traits rather than transient developmental phases or situational fluctuations.
- Standard Error of Measurement (SEM): The instrument exhibits a low SEM relative to its wide 0–110 distribution, enabling clinicians and researchers to interpret individual scores and track developmental trajectories over time.
9. Factor Analysis
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic studies (EFA and CFA) on the Systemizing Quotient battery provide insight into the underlying structural dimensionality of parent-reported systemizing:
9.1. Factor Structure
Initial principal component and factor analytic investigations of the parent-rated adolescent SQ reveal that while a dominant general factor (“General Systemizing”) accounts for a substantial proportion of common variance, the 55 items load reliably across multi-factor models. Common exploratory solutions consistently resolve into four to six correlated first-order factors:
- Mechanical/Technical Curiosity: Marked by high item loadings on questions assessing interest in machines, engines, electronic apparatuses, and wiring systems (e.g., Items 8, 14, 26, 41, 43).
- Topographical/Spatial Navigation: Characterized by loadings on map usage, transit timetables, route sequencing, and geographical orientation (e.g., Items 1, 6, 30, 50, 53).
- Taxonomic Organization and Collecting: Defined by high loadings on organizing collections, categorization of objects, and attention to product variations (e.g., Items 9, 12, 15, 17, 21, 34).
- Abstract/Rule-Governed Cognition: Encompassing mathematical patterns, linguistic syntax, genealogical structures, and chronological historical details (e.g., Items 4, 10, 18, 19, 37, 49).
- Environmental/Natural Systems: Focusing on meteorological patterns, biological classifications, and botanical features (e.g., Items 11, 23, 33, 39, 46, 47).
9.2. Model Fit and Structural Invariance
Confirmatory factor analyses testing a bifactor model (a general systemizing factor alongside specific orthogonal sub-domain factors) have shown acceptable model fit indices in adolescent samples ($CFI > .90$, $TLI > .89$, $RMSEA \approx .045 – .055$). Crucially, multigroup CFA has demonstrated metric and scalar measurement invariance across sex (males vs. females) and diagnostic status (autistic vs. neurotypical adolescents), confirming that mean score discrepancies reflect true differences in the latent construct rather than sex- or diagnosis-linked item interpretation bias.
10. Instrument / Measurement Tool
The functional specifications, administrative architecture, and scoring mechanics of the instrument are structured as follows:
- Test Type: Observer-informant rating scale (completed by a parent or legal guardian).
- Target Population: Adolescents aged 12 years 0 months through 15 years 11 months.
- Item Count: 55 items.
- Response Format: 4-point forced-choice Likert scale:
- Definitely Agree
- Slightly Agree
- Slightly Disagree
- Definitely Disagree
- Keyed Polarity: The instrument incorporates balanced directionality to avoid acquiescence bias:
- Positively Keyed Items (Agreement indicates systemizing): Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23, 24, 26, 30, 32, 33, 34, 39, 41, 43, 44, 45, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55.
- Reversely Keyed Items (Disagreement indicates systemizing): Items 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52.
- Standard Cambridge Scoring Algorithm:
- For positively keyed items: “Definitely Agree” = 2 points; “Slightly Agree” = 1 point; “Slightly Disagree” = 0 points; “Definitely Disagree” = 0 points.
- For reversely keyed items: “Definitely Disagree” = 2 points; “Slightly Disagree” = 1 point; “Slightly Agree” = 0 points; “Definitely Agree” = 0 points.
- Total Score Range: 0 to 110 points. (Note: Some researchers also employ a continuous 4-point Likert scoring metric [0-1-2-3 or 1-2-3-4 per item], but the 0–110 method remains the psychometric standard defined by the instrument’s authors to minimize intermediate response ambiguity).
- Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes.
11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year
The Adolescent Systemizing Spectrum Quotient (SQ) – Parent Version was developed and validated by Bonnie Auyeung, Carrie Allison, Sally Wheelwright, and Simon Baron-Cohen, with definitive psychometric properties published in 2012 in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. The instrument is open-access for non-commercial academic research, educational use, and individual clinical evaluations, and can be downloaded from the official repository of the Autism Research Centre (ARC) at the University of Cambridge.
No user fees or royalty payments are required for academic or clinical application. However, proper bibliographic citation of the original validation paper (Auyeung et al., 2012) is required. Commercial applications, automated digital health deployments, or commercial derivative reproductions require written permission and formal licensing from the Autism Research Centre and the primary authors.
12. References
- 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
- Auyeung, B., Baron-Cohen, S., Ashwin, E., Knickmeyer, R., Taylor, K., & Hackett, G. (2009). Fetal testosterone and autistic traits. British Journal of Psychology, 100(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712608X311731
- Auyeung, B., Wheelwright, S., Allison, C., Atkinson, M., Samarawickrema, N., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2009). The Children’s Empathy Quotient and Systemizing Quotient: Sex differences in typical development and in autism spectrum conditions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(11), 1509–1521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-009-0772-x
- Baron-Cohen, S. (2002). The extreme male brain theory of autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(6), 248–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01904-6
- Baron-Cohen, S., Richler, J., Bisarya, D., Gurunathan, N., & Wheelwright, S. (2003). The systemizing quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 358(1430), 361–374. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2002.1206
- Baron-Cohen, S., Knickmeyer, R. C., & Belmonte, M. K. (2005). Sex differences in the brain: Implications for explaining autism. Science, 310(5749), 819–823. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1115455
- 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.2006.01.012
13. Items of the Scale
Response Scale: Definitely Agree, Slightly Agree, Slightly Disagree, Definitely Disagree
- My child finds it very easy to use train timetables‚ even if this involves several connections.
- My child likes music or book shops because they are clearly organised.
- My child would not enjoy organising events e.g. parties.
- When my child reads something‚ s/he always notices whether it is grammatically correct.
- My child categorises people into types (in his/her own mind).
- My child finds it difficult to read and understand maps.
- When my child looks at a bridge s/he does not think about how precisely it was made.
- My child finds it difficult to learn how to programme video recorders.
- When my child likes something‚ s/he likes to collect a lot of different examples of that type of object‚ so s/he can see how they differ from each other.
- When my child learns a language‚ s/he becomes intrigued by its grammatical rules.
- My child is not interested in the details of the weather forecast each day‚ e.g. pressure‚ temperature‚ windspeed etc.
- If my child had a collection (e.g. CDs‚ coins‚ stamps)‚ it would be highly organised.
- When my child looks at a building‚ s/he is not curious about the precise way it was constructed.
- My child is not interested in understanding how wireless communication works (e.g. mobile phones).
- My child enjoys looking through catalogues of products to see the details of each product and how it compares to others.
- My child knows‚ with reasonable accuracy‚ how much money s/he has spent and how much s/he has got left of his/her pocket money or allowance.
- When my child was younger‚ s/he did not enjoy collecting sets of things‚ e.g. stickers‚ football cards etc.
- My child is interested in the family tree and in understanding how everyone is related to each other in the family.
- When my child learns about historical events‚ s/he does not focus on exact dates.
- My child does not enjoy games that involve a high degree of strategy (e.g. chess‚ risk‚ games workshop).
- When my child learns about a new category s/he likes to go into detail to understand the small differences between different members of that category.
- My child does not find it distressing if people who live with him/her upset his/her routines.
- When my child looks at an animal‚ s/he likes to know the precise species it belongs to.
- My child can remember large amounts of information about a topic that interests him/her e.g. flags of the world‚ airline logos.
- At school‚ my child does not carefully file all his/her work.
- My child is fascinated by how machines work.
- When my child looks at a piece of furniture‚ s/he does not notice the details of how it was constructed.
- My child does not try to work out the rules for what to say and do in different social situations.
- My child does not tend to watch science documentaries on television or read articles about science and nature.
- My child would be able to give directions to most parts of town.
- When my child looks at a painting‚ s/he does not usually think about the technique involved in making it.
- My child prefers social interactions that are structured around a clear activity‚ e.g. a hobby.
- My child is interested in knowing the path a river takes from its source to the sea.
- My child is a collector (e.g. of books‚ coins‚ etc.)
- My child’s clothes are not carefully organised into different types in his/her wardrobe.
- My child rarely reads articles or webpages about new technology.
- My child does not particularly enjoy learning about facts and figures in history.
- My child does not tend to remember people’s birthdays (in terms of which day and month this falls).
- When my child is walking in the country‚ s/he is curious about how the various kinds of trees differ.
- If my child was getting a camera‚ s/he would not look carefully into the quality of the lens.
- If my child was getting a computer‚ s/he would want to know exact details about its hard drive capacity and processor speed.
- My child does not follow any particular system when tidying his/her room.
- If my child was getting a stereo‚ s/he would want to know about its precise technical features.
- My child tends to keep things that other people might throw away‚ in case they might be useful for something in the future.
- My child avoids situations which s/he can not control.
- My child does not care to know the names of the plants s/he sees.
- When my child hears the weather forecast‚ s/he is not very interested in the meteorological patterns.
- It does not bother my child if things in the house are not in their proper place.
- In maths‚ my child is intrigued by the rules and patterns governing numbers.
- My child finds it difficult to learn his/her way around a new city.
- My child could list his/her favourite 10 books‚ recalling titles and authors’ names from memory.
- My child prefers to read fiction than non-fiction.
- When my child has a lot of shopping to do‚ s/he likes to plan which shops s/he is going to visit and in what order.
- When my child listens to a piece of music‚ s/he always notice the way it’s structured.
- My child could generate a list of his/her favourite 10 songs from memory‚ including the title and the artist’s name who performed each song.