Showing posts with label mental retardation. Show all posts

Parents and Teachers Should Not Be Misled: Autism, For Now, Includes Those With Intellectual Disability

The author of Autism and Oughtisms has posted a guest comment on the site Teaching the Teachers, Educating an Autistic Child is an Opportunity,  in which, like many other parents and professionals, she includes a commentary which distances autism disorders from intellectual disability:

"There is nothing inherent in autism as a condition, that limits a child’s intelligence or makes them impossible to teach. My own son for example (who has a diagnosis of classic autism) is clearly intelligent and incredibly eager to learn. There are however aspects of autism that will get in the way of learning; it is after all a developmental delay and learning disability."


The author's comment covers a lot of ground.  In the paragraph above I agree with most of what she says. What I disagree with though is the statement that "There is nothing inherent in autism as a condition, that limits a child’s intelligence".  That statement is correct in so far as the definition of autism in the DSM-IV does not require a finding of intellectual disability in order to determine that a child has an autism disorder.  It is true also in the sense that 100% of children with autism do not have an intellectual disability.  But it is misleading in  so far as there is a very clear association between classic autism, or DSM-IV Autistic Disorder and Intellectual Disability.  Parents and teachers should know at the outset that as many as 80%, or the vast majority,  of those with an Autistic Disorder diagnosis will also have an Intellectual Disability.  My sources for that assertion are set out in italics following this comment.   

While it is no longer acceptable to use the term "mentally retarded' to refer to those with intellectual disabilities or to openly mock them, it is still politically correct to exclude the intellectually disabled from consideration for inclusion in many discussions and contexts.  It has happened with the DSM-5 and the New Autism Spectrum Disorder, which will exclude from an autism diagnosis those with an Intellectual Disability, and should more accurately be called Asperger's Spectrum Disorder. It is also true with parents who want the world to know that although their child has an autism spectrum disorder they are not one of those with ... an intellectual disability. 

For the record my son has a diagnosis of Autistic Disorder and he is assessed as having "profound developmental delay".  He has an intellectual disability.   He too, like many autistic children, with or without intellectual disability, is also incredibly eager to learn notwithstanding his autistic disorder and his .... intellectual disability.   


Autism and Intellectual Disability Sources:

1) Canadian Psychological Association Autism Brief to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology November 9, 2006:


""Definition: Autism is a pervasive developmental disorder, first identified by Kanner in 1943. Decades later, Autism came to be viewed as the more severe of the Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) which also include Asperger’s Disorder. ASD is a heterogeneous disorder that includes a range of developmental impairments in the areas of social skills, verbal and non-verbal communication as well as restricted or repetitive interests or behaviours.


Symptoms and Impairments:


• Cognitive impairment is present in about 80% of persons diagnosed with Autism and
general intellectual functioning is most often below average. Persons diagnosed with
Asperger’s Disorder have average to above average intellectual functioning.""


2)Department of Health & Human Services - Center for Disease Control Counting Autism NOTE: The CDC surveys indicate the percentages of persons with Intellectual Disability and any Autism Spectrum Disorder including Aspergers.


""CDC’s most recent data show that between one in 80 and one in 240 children with an average of one in 110 have an ASD. This is a prevalence of about one percent of children. These results reflect data collected by CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network in multiple communities throughout the U.S. in 2006.


Estimates are based on health and education records from participating communities, which includes eight percent of the U.S. population of eight year olds. All children in the studies were eight years old because previous research has shown that most children with an ASD have been identified by this age for services.


...


Cognitive Functioning (from the pdf version)


2004


From 37.9% (Arizona) to 63% (Alabama) (overall average: 43.8 %) of the children identified with an ASD also had an intellectual disability (an IQ ≤70, at the sites that had test results on intellectual ability for at least 75% of the children identified).


2006


From 29.3% (Colorado) to 51.2% (South Carolina) (overall average: 41.0 %) of the children identified with an ASD also had an intellectual disability (an IQ ≤70, at the sites that had test reults on intellectual ability for at least 75% of the children identified)""


3) CDC Autism Expert Dr. Yeargin-Allsop noted that in the 60's and 70's ... before the DSM changes that added Aspergers (which excludes persons with Intellectual Disabilities) the "vast majority of persons with autism had intellectual disabilities. Not a simple majority ... the vast majority:


CDC Medical Epidemiologist Dr. Marshalynn Yeargin-Allsopp - CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal)Interview


"But the autism umbrella has since widened to include milder forms, says Dr. Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC. For example, it now includes Asperger syndrome, where the sufferer is socially impaired, but experiences typical language development.


Another difference between past and present autism diagnosis involves the presence of intellectual disabilities, adds Yeargin-Allsopp. During the 1960s and 1970s, the vast majority of those diagnosed with autism had an intellectual disability but today, only about 40% have one."


4) The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural DisordersWorld Health Organization, Geneva, 1992


F84.0 Childhood Autism


A pervasive developmental disorder defined by the presence of abnormal and/or impaired development that is manifest before the age of 3 years, and by the characteristic type of abnormal functioning in all three areas of social interaction, communication, and restricted, repetitive behaviour. The disorder occurs in boys three to four times more often than in girls.


...


All levels of IQ can occur in association with autism, but there is significant mental retardation in some three-quarters of cases.




F84.1 Atypical Autism


A pervasive developmental disorder that differs from autism in terms either of age of onset or of failure to fulfil all three sets of diagnostic criteria. Thus, abnormal and/or impaired development becomes manifest for the first time only after age 3 years; and/or there are insufficient demonstrable abnormalities in one or two of the three areas of psychopathology required for the diagnosis of autism (namely, reciprocal social interactions, communication, and restrictive, stereotyped, repetitive behaviour) in spite of characteristic abnormalities in the other area(s). Atypical autism arises most often in profoundly retarded individuals whose very low level of functioning provides little scope for exhibition of the specific deviant behaviours required for the diagnosis of autism; it also occurs in individuals with a severe specific developmental disorder of receptive language. Atypical autism thus constitutes a meaningfully separate condition from autism.


Includes:
* atypical childhood psychosis
* mental retardation with autistic features


5) Autism and intellectual disability: a study of prevalence on a sample of the Italian population.


La Malfa G, Lassi S, Bertelli M, Salvini R, Placidi GF.
Psychiatry Unit, Department of Neurological and Psychiatric Sciences, University of Florence, Hospital of Careggi, Florence, Italy. gplamalfa@videosoft.it
Abstract




BACKGROUND: In 1994, the American Association on Mental Retardation with the DSM-IV has come to a final definition of pervasive developmental disorders (PDD), in agreement with the ICD-10. Prevalence of PDD in the general population is 0.1-0.15% according to the DSM-IV. PDD are more frequent in people with severe intellectual disability (ID). There is a strict relationship between ID and autism: 40% of people with ID also present a PDD, on the other hand, nearly 70% of people with PDD also have ID. We believe that in Italy PDD are underestimated because there is no agreement about the classification system and diagnostic instruments.


METHOD: Our aim is to assess the prevalence of PDD in the Italian population with ID. The Scale of Pervasive Developmental Disorder in Mentally Retarded Persons (PDD-MRS) seems to be a very good instrument for classifying and diagnosing PDD.


RESULTS: The application of the PDD-MRS and a clinical review of every individual case on a sample of 166 Italian people with ID raised the prevalence of PDD in this population from 7.8% to 39.2%.


CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms the relationship between ID and autism and suggests a new approach in the study of ID in order to elaborate a new integrated model for people with ID.""

Posted in , , , |

Autism Disorders and the DSM-5 Storm - Will Intellectual Disability Realities Be Thrown Overboard?




The DSM-5 storm currently raging amongst psychiatric professionals should not be too shocking to most parents of autistic children.  Autism parents are used to the wars that rage over vaccines and autism and  whether it is right to try and treat or cure our own children. In the complex and controversial world of autism discussions  referring to  the well established fact that the "vast majority" of those with Autistic Disorder diagnoses  also have Intellectual Disabilities will invite outrage.  Even referring to Autistic Disorder as a Disorder will provoke controversy.  Some of these controversies are reflected in professional discussions so we are used to seeing controversy in any mention of autism. While not shocking the latest roar in the DSM-5 storm, this time, again, by Dr. Allen Francis, does shed some light on one aspect of the DSM-5 process that has puzzled me ... the failure to post severity criteria for public consumption on the official DSM-5 site of the American Psychiatric Association even after the start of the clinical field trial phase has been announced.

Dr. Allen Francis has been a persistent and candid critic of the DSM-5 process questioning many conceptual issues pertaining to the diagnostic definition changes of some disorders and the addition of new disorders to the Diagnoatic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association.  In his latest critique of the DSM-5 process, DSM 5 Field Trials--Missed Deadlines Have Troubling Consequences,  Dr. Francis critiques the sloppiness of the process including missed deadlines for completion of different phases in the process. Dr. Francis focuses on the field trail phase of the DSM revision process and states:


It was patently obvious from the moment of its announcements that the new DSM-5 field test timetable was also a product of fantasy that would not be met in the real world. First off, it should have been clear that the field trials could not possibly start on time 2 months after their announcement. Recruiting the sites, training the personnel, gaining human rights approvals, and pilot testing always take at least 6 months. Predictably, we are already in mid November 2010 and it is still not at all clear when the DSM-5 field tests will actually begin to enroll patients at all its sites.Then there is the design. Forget for the moment that it asks the wrong questions and will produce largely irrelevant answers. Forget that it is testing poorly written criteria sets that are in much too rough a form to be ready for testing. Again, our focus here is only on timetables and missed deadlines. The DSM-5 field trials are a masterpiece of cumbersome complexity-- an administrative nightmare. They were originally scheduled to last 9 months starting July 2010 and ending in March 2011. Instead, the project will probably not start in full force until December 2010 or January 2011 (or later). By my reckoning (based on the experience with the DSM-IV field trials), it will take at least a year to complete from the date of first patient entry. And this assumes a maximum possible efficiency that is not at all likely given all the past laggard DSM-5 performances.
...
Because we are reaching a point of no return, these accumulating delays spell future disaster for DSM-5. The future schedule provides little room for error or forgivingness. The DSM-5 publication date of May 2013 is fixed in stone --both because the new ICD-10-CM codes will become official in October 2013 and because the APA budget depends on DSM-5 publishing profits. But the work to be done is enormous, not really do-able in the remaining time allotted. The result will be a rushed and jumbled DSM-5 that will create huge problems for our field and for our patients.

Dr. Francis's comments do not instill confidence in the DSM-5 to this humble autism dad.  But they do reflect some of the concerns I have felt over the failure by the DSM-5 revision teams to post the severity criteria for the New Autism Spectrum Disorder which will combine Aspergers and PDD-NOS with the existing category of Autistic Disorder. The most important distinction between Autistic Disorder and Aspergers has always been the exclusion from Aspergers Disorder diagnosis of anyone with Intellectual Disability.  Credible authorities have indicated that as many as 75-80% of persons with Autistic Disorder also have intellectual disabilities.  This aspect of Autistic Disorder reality is rarely mentioned or taken into account by anyone  discussing autism including the major  mainstream media or even researchers who now routinely announce "autism" study results based exclusively on research participants with high functioning Autistic Disorder or Aspergers.

When the proposed combination of the various PDD categories into the existing Autistic Disorder  was made public he major mainstream media focused exclusively on the reaction of persons with Aspergers or well known parents of children with Aspergers like anthropologist  Roy Richard Grinker.  The fear of some with Aspergers of being grouped with Autistic Disorder was assuaged by the assurances of Grinker and others who have gushed about how autism no longer carries a stigma. What was being unsaid in such statements was that the fear of stigma was the stigma of being associated  with a category that included so many persons with Mental Retardation now referred to euphemistically as Intellectual Disability.

As the father of a son with Autistic Disorder and Intellectual Disability who is not ashamed to speak openly about the Intellectual Disability aspect of my son's condition my concern is the exact opposite of those who fear association with Intellectual Disability.  My concern is that the severely debilitating challenges facing those with currently defined Autistic Disorder and Intellectual Disability will be further obscured and hidden in  the New Autism Spectrum Disorder. During the DSM-IV era "autism" has become increasingly defined in the public mind, and more and more in the minds of professionals and researchers,  by very high functioning persons with no obvious deficits or challenges. Meanwhile public, media and researchers alike simply ignore those low functioning persons with Autistic Disorder particularly those with Intellectual Disabilities.

Concerned about the persistent attempt to disassociate Intellectual Disability from Autistic Disorder I have visited the official DSM-5 site several times to see if the severity criteria would at least refer to intellectual disabilities or cognitive challenges in the severity criteria category. Despite the site's message to check back frequently there is today still no posting of the severity criteria for the proposed New Autism Spectrum Disorder. Dr. Francis, the lead professional in the DSM revision process that led to the DSM-IV, is obviously  much, much better informed about the likely reasons for this delay than this humble parent.  If he says it is a matter of sloppy work by the current DSM-5 revision teams  than it probably is or at least it is a major factor.

I  have to wonder though whether the persistent stigmatization arising from association of autism with intellectual disability ... with mental retardation ... is also a major factor in the failure of the DSM-5 review team to post severity criteria for the New Autism Spectrum Disorder.  I remain concerned that the challenges facing those most severely affected by autism will continue to be obscured and ignored, even hidden,  by medical professionals and researchers.

If Dr. Allen Francis, captain of the DSM-IV, does not have confidence in the good ship DSM-5, then why should I, a mere passenger,  have confidence that the ship will  weather the storm and arrive at a safe harbor? And why should I have confidence that some of the ship's baggage, including the Intellectual Disability reality faced by the vast majority of persons with the currently defined Autistic Disorder, will not be thrown overboard before the DSM-5 arrives in port?

Posted in , , , , , , , |

Search

Swedish Greys - a WordPress theme from Nordic Themepark. Converted by LiteThemes.com.