Skip to content

RAADS-R Test for Autism – Free – 80 Questions | Raadsrtests.com

RAADS-R

Ritvo Autism Asperger Diagnostic Scale, Revised

Free and private adult screening

An 80-item self-screen for autistic traits in adults, including traits that were missed in childhood. Scored instantly in your browser. No account, no sign-up, and nothing is sent to a server.

Start free test

Educational screening only. This is not a medical diagnosis.

RAADS-RQuestion 1 of 80
RAADS-R questionnaire0%

In a group conversation I lose track of whose turn it is to speak.

Research-based

Built on the published RAADS-R design, with original items. A total of 65 is the widely cited adult screening threshold.

Private by design

No account required. Scoring runs in your browser and your answers never leave the device.

Written for adults

Aimed at late-recognised and masked presentations, not a childhood behaviour checklist.

What the RAADS-R is

The Ritvo Autism Asperger Diagnostic Scale–Revised is an 80-item self-report questionnaire designed to help identify autism in adults who reached adulthood without a diagnosis. It asks you to answer for your whole life rather than only for how you feel now, which is what separates it from most online quizzes: autism is developmental, so a trait that appeared at 30 means something different from one that was there at 6.

It produces a score from 0 to 240 across four areas — Social Relatedness, Circumscribed Interests, Language, and Sensory-Motor. It was never designed to be self-administered on a website. It was built as a clinician’s intake tool, to be handed to someone already sitting in an assessment service.

That gap between what it was built for and how it is used now explains almost every argument about it, including the one about the number 65.

The history of the RAADS-R

2008: the original RAADS

Riva Ariella Ritvo, Edward Ritvo and colleagues published the first version in 2008 as a 78-item pilot instrument. The problem they were addressing was concrete and is still with us: adults who had clearly been autistic their whole lives were arriving in clinics with no diagnosis, often after decades of being treated for anxiety, depression or personality disorders instead. There was no established self-report measure built for that population.

2011: the revision and the international validation

Three years later the same group published the revised 80-item version in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. The validation study recruited across multiple countries and compared 201 diagnosed autistic adults against 578 comparison participants. The separation between the groups was close to perfect, and the paper reported a sensitivity of about 97% and specificity approaching 100% at a cutoff score of 65.

That is where 65 comes from. One study, published in 2011, with a particular design.

2011 onward: translation and spread

A Swedish validation appeared the same year, and translations followed into other languages. The instrument spread quickly because it filled a real gap, it was free to look at, and it was far more detailed than the brief screeners that existed.

It also leaked onto the open internet, which the authors never planned for. Most people who take “the RAADS-R” today take an unofficial web copy, alone, with no clinician involved, and read a number with no context. That is a different test being used in a different way on a different population — and it is where the problems start.

2015–2024: the scrutiny

As the instrument became popular, researchers began checking whether the 2011 numbers held up in the places it was actually being used. They did not. That body of work is the subject of the next section, and it is the single most important thing to understand before reading any score.

Why the 65 threshold is too low

The 2011 study was not fraudulent or careless. Its design simply made the task easy. Comparing adults with a confirmed autism diagnosis against general-population volunteers is the gentlest possible test of a screening tool, because the two groups differ on many dimensions at once. Any reasonable questionnaire would separate them.

The real question is harder: among people who are uncertain enough to seek an assessment, can a score of 65 tell apart those who are autistic from those who are not? Four studies have asked a version of that question.

Sizoo and colleagues, 2015

Published in Autism, this study tested the predictive validity of several self-report questionnaires in adults being assessed for autism. Non-autistic participants with other psychiatric conditions scored, on average, 27 points above the 65 cutoff. The authors suggested the threshold would need to rise to around 98 before it did useful work.

Brugha and colleagues, 2020

Published in the International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, this study applied questionnaire screening across an adult mental health service population in the UK. Specificity fell as low as 3%. More than half of the service users screened crossed the threshold. The authors’ suggested range was 120 to 126 — roughly double the original.

Jones and colleagues, 2021

Published in Autism Research and Treatment, this examined the RAADS-R inside a specialist adult autism assessment service, which is precisely the setting it was designed for. The result was striking: an area under the curve of 0.45. An AUC of 0.5 is a coin flip, so 0.45 means the cutoff performed marginally worse than chance at that site. Positive predictive value was around 35% — roughly two false positives for every true one.

Sturm and colleagues, 2024

Published in Autism, this psychometric examination with autistic adults went further and questioned the instrument’s internal structure, not just its cutoff — raising the possibility that the four subscales do not behave as cleanly as the original model assumed.

Why this happens, in one paragraph. Many items on any adult autism questionnaire describe experiences that are not exclusive to autism. Finding social situations exhausting, dreading phone calls, being sensitive to noise, needing routine, over-rehearsing conversations — these are also features of anxiety disorders, depression, ADHD, PTSD and ordinary introversion. A questionnaire cannot ask why you recognise an item. It can only count that you did.

What a better threshold looks like

There is no consensus replacement, which is itself worth knowing. The suggested alternatives from the studies above range from 98 to 126. Analysis of a very large clinical dataset by the assessment platform NovoPsych produced working thresholds of 106 and 140, reporting roughly 81% sensitivity and specificity — far from perfect, but a great deal more honest than the original claim.

Our test reports four bands rather than a single line, and keeps 65 visible because that is the number people arrive looking for:

Score Band How to read it
0 – 64 Below the screening threshold Below the original cutoff. Does not rule autism out, particularly if you mask.
65 – 105 Above the 65 threshold Above the original cutoff, and inside the range where false positives are most common.
106 – 139 Most associated with autism Above the thresholds later work suggests are more reliable.
140 + Pronounced traits Above every published threshold for an instrument of this type.

More useful than any of these: read the shape across the four areas. A score of 95 concentrated almost entirely in Sensory-Motor means something different from 95 spread evenly. The first suggests sensory processing differences; the second is closer to the typical autistic profile.

About the RAADS-R Test on This Page

The questions on this site are original, written for this site. They follow the same published design, lifetime four-point response format, the same four areas in the same proportions, the same 0 to 240 range, because formats and constructs are shared methodology. The test sentences are ours, and are updated for 2027.

The original RAADS-R Test was criticized mainly for high false-positive rates, and the ambiguous phrasing of its questions. Recent studies (such as Jones et al.) show that the original RAADS-R frequently struggles to separate autism from other conditions. This means, that symptoms of ADHD, social anxiety, depression, and OCD frequently overlap with or mimic autistic traits on the test.

Our updated RAADS-R Asperger’s and Autism Spectrum test corrects for that, and the scoring system has been adjusted.

This RAADS-R test is a 2027 updated version of the original RAADS R Autism test. It is not a diagnosis. This RAADS-R test is not affiliated with Ritvo and colleagues. No online questionnaire can diagnose autism. If you want a diagnosis, you need a clinical assessment.

The alternatives, and what each is actually good for

The RAADS-R is one of several instruments, and for many people it is not the best starting point. Here is an honest assessment of each.

AQ-50 (Autism-Spectrum Quotient)

Baron-Cohen and colleagues, 2001. Fifty statements rated on a four-point agreement scale, scored 0 to 50, with 32 as the commonly cited cutoff. The most widely used adult autism questionnaire in the world and the one most research has been built on.

Pros

  • Enormous evidence base spanning two decades
  • Quick — around 10 minutes
  • Subscale structure gives a usable profile
  • Freely available for personal use
Cons

  • Asks about the present, not your whole life
  • Known to underperform for women and for people who mask
  • Agreement scale is easier to game, consciously or not
  • Cutoff of 32 has drawn the same criticism as 65

AQ-10

Allison, Auyeung and Baron-Cohen, 2012. A ten-item short form built for triage, with a cutoff of 6. Used by the NHS as a first-pass filter before referral.

Pros

  • Takes about two minutes
  • Designed specifically as a referral gate, and used that way in practice
  • Low burden for someone unsure about starting
Cons

  • Ten items cannot produce a meaningful profile
  • A single answer moves the score substantially
  • Should never be treated as a result in itself

RAADS-14 Screen

A fourteen-item short form derived from the RAADS-R, developed for use in adult psychiatric settings where time is short.

Pros

  • Very fast
  • Built and validated specifically for psychiatric populations, unlike the full RAADS-R
  • Useful where the question is whether a fuller assessment is warranted
Cons

  • Loses the four-area profile entirely
  • Inherits the parent instrument’s difficulty separating autism from other conditions

CAT-Q (Camouflaging Autistic Traits Questionnaire)

Hull and colleagues, 2019. Twenty-five items measuring compensation, masking and assimilation. It does not screen for autism — it measures how hard you are working to appear non-autistic.

Pros

  • Captures the single biggest reason adult screeners miss people
  • Especially informative for women and late-diagnosed adults
  • Explains a low RAADS-R or AQ score better than either instrument can
Cons

  • Not a screening tool — a high score is not evidence of autism
  • Requires self-awareness about behaviour that is often automatic
  • Only meaningful alongside another measure

M-CHAT-R/F

Robins and colleagues. A parent-report screener for toddlers roughly 16 to 30 months, with a structured follow-up interview for borderline results. Completely different purpose from everything else here.

Pros

  • Strong evidence base in the age range it was built for
  • The follow-up interview sharply reduces false positives
  • Standard in paediatric practice in many countries
Cons

  • Useless for adults — do not take it for yourself
  • The follow-up step is frequently skipped, which is where its accuracy comes from

ADOS-2 and ADI-R

Not questionnaires. The ADOS-2 is a structured observational assessment administered by a trained clinician; the ADI-R is a long developmental interview, usually with a parent or someone who knew you as a child. Together they are the closest thing to a diagnostic standard.

Pros

  • The actual basis of a formal diagnosis
  • Observed behaviour and developmental history, not self-report
  • Not vulnerable to masking in the way questionnaires are
Cons

  • Requires a trained clinician and several hours
  • Expensive privately; long waits publicly
  • ADI-R needs an informant who knew you as a child, which not everyone has

What about “the best Asperger’s test”?

Worth saying plainly: Asperger’s syndrome is no longer a separate diagnosis. DSM-5 folded it into autism spectrum disorder in 2013, and ICD-11 followed. There is no current Asperger’s test, because there is no current Asperger’s diagnosis.

If you are searching that term you are probably looking for an adult screener aimed at people without intellectual disability or language delay — which is what the RAADS-R, the AQ and this test are all built for. Many adults still use the word for themselves, and that is their choice to make; it just will not appear on a clinical report.

Which should you take?

If you… Start with
Want the fullest picture of yourself An 80-item lifetime instrument like the one on this page
Want something quick first AQ-10, then a longer test if it flags
Score low but still recognise yourself CAT-Q — masking may be the reason
Are preparing for a referral Any of them, plus a written history, which matters more
Are asking about a toddler Speak to a paediatrician; M-CHAT-R/F with the follow-up step
Want a diagnosis None of these. You need a clinician.

What a real assessment involves

Usually several hours, often across more than one appointment. A developmental history going back to early childhood. Structured interviews, frequently including someone who knew you as a child. Screening questionnaires may form part of the intake, but no competent clinician diagnoses from a questionnaire score.

What helps most is not a test result. It is specifics: school reports, remarks family have made over the years, concrete examples of situations you find difficult and exactly which part is difficult. “I find work socialising hard” is weak. “I can manage a one-to-one meeting but the open-plan office means I cannot think by 3pm, and I take my lunch in the car to recover” is the kind of detail an assessment can use.

Frequently asked questions

Is a score above 65 a diagnosis?

No. It means you recognised a substantial number of these experiences. Research in clinical settings shows a large share of people above 65 are not autistic, most often because anxiety, depression or ADHD raise scores too.

Why do different sites give me different results?

Because most online versions are unofficial, and some alter wording, scoring or thresholds. Scores are only comparable within the same test.

Can I be autistic with a low score?

Yes. Adults who have masked for decades often answer describing the constructed version of themselves rather than the effort underneath. The CAT-Q is designed for exactly this situation.

How long does the test take?

About 15 minutes for 80 questions. There is no timer and your answers are saved as you go.

Is this test free?

Yes, with no sign-up and no email. Nothing you enter leaves your browser.

Should I tell my doctor my score?

You can, but lead with examples rather than the number. A clinician will weigh a concrete history far more heavily than a score from a website, and rightly so.

Sources and further reading

Every claim about thresholds on this page comes from the published literature below. Where a paper is paywalled, the DOI link resolves to the publisher’s record and the abstract.

The instrument itself

  • Ritvo, R. A., Ritvo, E. R., Guthrie, D., et al. (2011). The Ritvo Autism Asperger Diagnostic Scale-Revised (RAADS-R): a scale to assist the diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder in adults: an international validation study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(8), 1076–1089. doi.org/10.1007/s10803-010-1133-5 — the original validation, and the source of the 65 cutoff.
  • Ritvo, R. A., Ritvo, E. R., Guthrie, D., et al. (2008). A Scale to Assist the Diagnosis of Autism and Asperger’s Disorder in Adults (RAADS): A Pilot Study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 213–223. doi.org/10.1007/s10803-007-0380-6
  • Andersen, L. M., Näswall, K., Manouilenko, I., et al. (2011). The Swedish version of the RAADS-R: A validation study of a rating scale for adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(12), 1635–1645. doi.org/10.1007/s10803-011-1191-3 · free full text on PubMed Central

The studies showing 65 is too low

  • Sizoo, B. B., Horwitz, E., Teunisse, J., et al. (2015). Predictive validity of self-report questionnaires in the assessment of autism spectrum disorders in adults. Autism, 19(7), 842–849. doi.org/10.1177/1362361315589869 — non-autistic psychiatric patients averaged 27 points above the cutoff; suggested raising it to 98.
  • Brugha, T., Tyrer, F., Leaver, A., et al. (2020). Testing adults by questionnaire for social and communication disorders, including autism spectrum disorders, in an adult mental health service population. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 29(1), e1814. doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1814 — specificity as low as 3%; suggested 120–126.
  • Jones, S. L., Johnson, M., Alty, B., & Adamou, M. (2021). The Effectiveness of RAADS-R as a Screening Tool for Adult ASD Populations. Autism Research and Treatment, 2021, 9974791. doi.org/10.1155/2021/9974791 · free full text on PubMed Central — AUC of 0.45 in a specialist service; positive predictive value about 35%.
  • Sturm, A., Huang, S., Bal, V., & Schwartzman, B. (2024). Psychometric exploration of the RAADS-R with autistic adults: Implications for research and clinical practice. Autism, 28(9), 2334–2345. doi.org/10.1177/13623613241228329 — questions the instrument’s internal structure, not only its cutoff.
  • Folatti, I., Santangelo, G., Sanguineti, C., et al. (2024). The Prevalence of Autistic Traits in a Sample of Young Adults Referred to a Generalized Mental Health Outpatient Clinic. Diagnostics, 14(21), 2418. doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14212418 — open access.

The other instruments

  • 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. doi.org/10.1023/A:1005653411471
  • Allison, C., Auyeung, B., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2012). Toward brief “red flags” for autism screening: the short Autism Spectrum Quotient and the short Quantitative Checklist in 1,000 cases and 3,000 controls. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 51(2), 202–212. doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2011.11.003 — the AQ-10.
  • Hull, L., Mandy, W., Lai, M.-C., et al. (2019). Development and Validation of the Camouflaging Autistic Traits Questionnaire (CAT-Q). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(3), 819–833. doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3792-6 · free full text via UCL Discovery
  • Robins, D. L., Casagrande, K., Barton, M., et al. (2014). Validation of the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers, Revised with Follow-up (M-CHAT-R/F). Pediatrics, 133(1), 37–45. doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-1813
  • Eriksson, J. M., Andersen, L. M., & Bejerot, S. (2013). RAADS-14 Screen: validity of a screening tool for autism spectrum disorder in an adult psychiatric population. Molecular Autism, 4, 49. free full text on PubMed Central

Background and context

A note on the sources. We have linked the papers themselves rather than summaries of them, and the threshold figures quoted on this page are taken from those papers directly. Where we could not verify a study, we left it out.
Take the test →

This page is for information only and is not medical advice. The test on this site uses original questions and is not the RAADS-R, is not affiliated with its authors or publishers, and cannot diagnose autism or any other condition. If you are struggling with your mental health, contact your doctor or a qualified professional.