New Study: High Autism Rates Due To Over-Diagnosis

Post Reply New Topic

It seems like the message here should be that non-qualified medical personnel like pediatricians should use these screening tools to make referrals to specialists, rather than to make their own diagnoses or assume that a positive result is a false positive. I didn't see a link to the study being discussed, just other studies about the percentages of autistic children estimated (http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html). In fact, one link in the first CDC overview actually says "Research has shown that a diagnosis of autism at age 2 can be reliable, valid, and stable. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16754843"

The article left a lot of unanswered questions: were the children referred to specialists? At what age were they diagnosed? What interventions and therapies were used, if any? What tests determined that they were false positives? Either the article left out too many details or the study was poorly done. All sorts of conflicting conclusions can be made from it.

Would it also have something to do with the ethics of the diagnostician?

Additionally, a later diagnosis of a psychotic disorder does not by itself negate an autism diagnosis.

It is possible for negative symptoms of schizophrenia to resemble autism, however.

Where I live there is a HUGE amount of kids diagnosed with autism. Literally 1 in 3 kids in the public school system is considered to be part of special education, MANY diagnosed with autism. At least where I live, which is NOT in the US, I have seen kids diagnosed with autism and I look at them and think "no way". Sadly, welfare/food stamps pays more here if your kid has some type of diagnosis and the parents are looking to get more money, yes, truth. Literally my neighbor had 8 grandchildren and 6 had some diagnosis. I watched some of her grandchildren and the kids were literally being raised alone. Mom was too busy on her phone and kids that were 1, 2, 4 5 were walking up and down stairs in an apartment complex unsupervised all day long. So where I live, I do believe that some are misdiagnosed, as the kids need services because they don't speak, have psychological problems, etc. and the experts are afraid of diagnosing RADS or saying the word NEGLECT, therefore, they diagnose the kids just to get them services. Sad, but true. I have spoken to some experts who have indeed told me this.

However, that doesn't mean that there aren't many who are diagnosed correctly. I also think that there are many teens/adults yet to be diagnosed. At some point the numbers will hold steady.

HisShadowX - understood, but my point is that where I live many are getting the diagnosis because it helps the parents, regardless of what other help they already have. For example, you can get unemployment benefits FOREVER if you say that you have a special needs child and therefore cannot work. Autism is the new thing, one that society does not blame on parenting as much as ADHD/neglect/RADS, therefore, it is being used here for this purpose...which increases the numbers drastically.

Another story about this:
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-heal ... ed-n450671

I agree with ASPartOfMe. What about learning coping mechanisms which could cause a person to "lose" a DX later in life simply because s/he has learned how to "act" less autistic, given so much of an ASD DX is based on function? When I was seven years old, I could often be found rocking silently on the playground for 25 minutes without stopping, with my head buried in my knees to shut out all the confusing sounds and sights. I grunted and did other vocal stims, spoke in a voice described by my mother as "robotic" and had a "flat"-looking expression even when I was happy, sad, telling a joke, etc. Today, I'm pretty sure I'd never be DXd as autistic unless going off my very, very past history of how I acted and functioned externally. (In fact two of my sons' doctors have asked me if I was ever DXd as being on the spectrum without my asking or even hinting, only by answering their standard questions about my and my husband's histories. Both told me I probably couldn't be DXd today due to how well I "function," hence I'm not "impacted" negatively/impeded, plus based on the absence of stims, as I have "self-extinguished" them; but that they believe very firmly that I must be on the spectrum based not only on my past but, per further probing, on the numerous coping and compensation skills I told them about that I still use today.)

I have spent four decades teaching myself how to "act" NT but there are some things I will never overcome, and they are internal. Yet a DX requires not just "some" autistic characteristics (for instance, I'll never stop having intense special interests, and I'll never stop being overwhelmed by sounds and visual stuff), but X amount per category, in all required categories.

Does that mean if I had been DXd in 1974 before I'd spent the majority of my life giving myself "social stories," reading every possible human behavior book I could possibly get my hands on and making an intense study of mimicry of the NT population, down to how I modulate my voice, move my hands during conversation and how much eye contact is considered "normal," then my initial DX would have been "wrong" and part of an "over-diagnosis trend"? I don't believe I'm unusual as regards all this, either. I have heard many stories from other people, particularly in the 35+ age group (pre-autism awareness development as it has led to today and as continues to be understood).

These days red flags are observed much, much earlier than ever in the past and very, very small children are being given intensive therapies. They "learn to act" NT much earlier than, for example, someone like me who was flying by the seat of her pants. If they can "act" NT and can't meet all the ASD criteria any more, does that mean initially, they were mis-diagnosed and this is some gigantic problem of doctors just all jumping on the bandwagon of rushing to an ASD DX or something?

Now at the same time, there's another thing I agree with ASPartOfMe on. Yes, it's probably a mistake to DX a very, very young child with ASD. In fact, my son's assessors told me that was why they wouldn't give an ASD DX initially. Instead, he was originally DXd with PDD-NOS. The primary psych on the assessment team told me there are too many "autistic-like" behaviors in toddlers that are actually just part of their immaturity and which later they will grow out of, just like a whole lot of other things very little children grow out of. She said it would be clearer as he became older, she was right, it was, and he was DXd moderately autistic at age 4, after his third set of assessments and 2.5 years of OT, ST and SDC.

All that CNN article illustrates to me is the irony of neurotypicals asserting that we are the ones who supposedly can't see the bigger picture...