Tuttle wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Asperger's overall criteria from the DSMIV fit Hans Asperger's original description of what he described as "autistic psychopathy", except there were only 3 basic criterion elements required. The decision to call it Asperger's syndrome was in differentiation of another description previously identified by Kanner, "autistic disturbances of affective contact", eventually defined and described as autistic disorder
[...]
This new Autistic Spectrum Disorder more closely reflects what Asperger's described than what Kanner described per Kanner's "autistic disturbance of affective contact" vs. Asperger's "Autistic psychopathy". The main factor that differentiated the actual bodies of work in case studies was the absence of the severity of deficit in the development of language per Kanner's case studies, which has now been removed from the new Autistic Spectrum Disorder.
[...]
Autistic Disorder could have just as easily have been called Kanner's syndrome, which some do still refer to it as Kanner's autism. Per that analogy, technically per basic criteria, this revision is more of Han's Asperger's autistic spectrum disorder than Leo Kanner's autistic spectrum disorder.
[...]
There are some people whose children are more severely impacted by what Kanner described that have complained that autistic disorder is what has gone away and Asperger's syndrome is, in effect, what is staying per the criteria that actually remains. They have a good point, it's interesting that not many people have picked up on it, because the focus has been on the labels for some instead of the actual changes in criteria of the current Autistic Disorder vs.Asperger's Disorder.
Have you ever actually read what Kanner wrote? 11 of the 12 people he described were "high functioning", and comparable to the people who Asperger described. Only 1 of the the initial 12 people he described was non-verbal at the age he was working with them. His initial work was not on the people that are consider stereotypical autism now.
Some of his subjects, depending on where they diagnosed, if they were diagnosed now, would likely have been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, not classic autism, actually.
Sure, some people think of stereotypical classic autism as Kanner's autism. That does not mean that what Kanner wrote actually matches that.
Also, what Asperger wrote doesn't actually match with the DSM-IV description of Asperger's Syndrome well. That's actually why I only call myself Autistic and don't identify with my Asperger's diagnosis. I fit Asperger's description better, and the Gillberg criteria better (which is the one that actually matches Asperger's description best), but don't fit the DSM-IV description particularly better than just being autistic in general.
Yes, I have read it and was not suggesting that all of Kanner's case studies were non-verbal, but it is the characteristic that historically has set the two diagnoses apart along with intellectual disability. It could have been reasonable to call it a co-morbid condition at the time of Kanner's work, but it was continued to be identified an optional requirement to be diagnosed with Autistic Disorder. Those with that condition are more obviously impacted and identified as severely impacted, so this is where most of the attention has been focused. That's not surprising.
http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/01/a-spectrum-of-disorders-htmlQuote:
Asperger documented a condition in boys that he termed “autistic psychopathy,” characterized by “a lack of empathy, little ability to form friendships, one-sided conversation, intense absorption in a special interest, and clumsy movements.” His patients differed from Kanner’s in that they did not exhibit developmental delays in language or cognition
http://www.bbbautism.com/asp_gillberg.htm
I agree that the Gillberg criteria is a better match than the DSMIV criteria or the DSM5 criteria, as it makes the core symptoms Aspergers described as mandatory requirements, rather than the loose requirements of the DSMIV, where an individual could be diagnosed without impairments in forming friendships or without impairments in non-verbal communication. It actually better describes what Kanner and Asperger's described as a whole, than what the DSM5 criteria describes, as the Gillberg criteria includes language development delays for Asperger's. The improvement in the DSM5 is it makes more of Asperger's described core symptoms mandatory.
As far as I am concerned the Gilberg criteria should have been the standard for the DSMIV, from the get go, except there appeared to be an intent on separating the two disorders at that time, over requiring more of what Aspergers originally described in his case studies.
10 Dec 2012, 2:00 pm
