How TEACCH defines the spectrum

Post Reply New Topic

There isn't a fixed criteria for PDD-NOS so it is impossible to say that PDD-NOS 'children' are anything.

This idea of lining them up in straight line is moronic. It is like those that say NLD is like Asperger's light. That is stupid they are effectively the same thing although not all aspies share the traits of Asperger's and NLD tend to have *more* learning disabilities than Asperger's not less. So it really is a question of what people are referring to when they talk about 'severity'.

It is very simple NOS stand for Not Otherwise Specified. There are hordes of areas that carry the NOS label not just PDDs.

Well did you mean it is logical if for some unknown reason they are the ultimate authority that people follow them OR are you saying it is logical that they are followed because they are the ultimate authority authority in you view?

let me explain why I don't think putting these disorders on a straight line is accurate:

The reason is that the individual traits that make up these disorders are not fixed together at the same point. Each of these are on a spectrum and vary considerably. Somebody could be very severe on sensory issue but can talk. Other may have profound language problems but little sensory issues, etc. The possibilities are endless.

It is illogical therefore to expect the same sort of presentation a point on this line for two people, in fact, in fact they are not making it very easy to make any sort of analysis let alone classification at all.

Now you really succeeded in making me confused. I'll try to sort out.

I think it is logical that if in fact TEACCH is an authority, a fair share of diagnosticians will orientate themselves at what TEEACH dictates them regardless of the fact that the actual definition of PDD-NOS in the DSM-IV-TR is different from how TEACCH says it is.

Since I don't know if TEACCH really is an authority I cannot comment on how likely this is. But if TEACCH were an authority I'd find the idea that there could develop a common understanding of PDD-NOS independent of the DSM-IV-TR likely.

I cannot make a sandwich.

I agree, the severity with the labels now doesn't help much either, other than saying that people with autistic disorder are "really bad", those with AS are "bad to kinda bad", and PDD-NOS are "really bad to kinda bad".

The areas of function I was talking about revolve around doing certain things rather than symptom severity, i.e., making food; studying; working; driving/transport, etcetera.

I agree with you that for treatment purposes it would do no good to help someone with something like motor skills when they don't have a problem with motor skills. I believe your style of graphing out people's strengths and weaknesses is important for treatment.

However, and the main reason I even posted about this, is that there needs to be a standard way of describing basic autism spectrum disorders. If people want to just say "I have an autism spectrum disorder" that's fine, but it would help to have a bit of organization within the spectrum to differentiate between those autistics who can communicate and participate in mainstream activities versus those who will never speak or be able to change their own diapers. And although your graph would be of great help to a psychologist or teacher intending to help someone with their problem areas, it really doesn't help if you're trying to explain to a person who asks why you keep rocking back and forth.

To be honest it makes the people who research autism seem a bit silly if they can't all agree on the definitions of what their studying. Why bother researching the differences of PDD-NOS compared to Asperger's if your definition is reversed from someone in another country, or even another research facility? And the terms themselves are so undescriptive that they really make it more difficult than it needs to be.

Maybe I should stop posting on this for a while. I keep going in circles in my arguments and I'm having a hard time stating why I have a problem without sounding like I'm disagreeing with you. It's just that if you tell someone you have Diabetes type 1, everyone knows exactly what you're talking about, even in different countries, and you don't have to qualify it with a Diabetes type 1 without a verbal delay or other BS. I just wish it could be that easy with ASDs.

Actually it is not the graph (you can represent the score any way you what) or even the components that I happen to have chosen as then may not be established enough to warrant being used. It is the concept of recording components. Frankly I think it help to explain rocking as it is linked to repetitive behaviors especially. A label isn't an explanation. What you may mean is an excuse rather than an explanation. The problem is is some people may accept the excuse and other may not, you can't control that.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 10 Apr 2008, 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There is a new disorder that has been discovered CAED.


































.... Contradictory Autism Expert Disorder.

Don't worry about that you sounds sensible, I'm happy to debate with you. You realize it is complex and dynamic. We are on the same wave length.