Newer and Revised DSM-V Criteria w/ Severity Labels

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/P ... spx?rid=94

Opinions?

They put the sensory criteria in there--good. And they've gotten rid of the extreme focus on language development--also good, because lack of language development on its own is a speech/language disorder, which is different from autism. I like that they emphasized the range of possibilities rather than putting down single traits.

This is still quite child-focused, though. It's just as hard to apply to adults as the current criteria.

I'd like to see some expansion on the idea of 'requiring support'. I've never had formal support, but have a history of interactions with the mental health system. I doubt I would do well without my wife managing our household.

The severity levels also bring up the possibility of moving down the scale as one gains more skills in dealing with other people.

I like the criteria but am not too fond of the severity labels.

What are they going to do, put me in a room full of people and then quiz them afterward to see if these casual observers noticed something was ´abnormal´ with me? I'm willing to bet anybody who who was previously dxed with Asperger's would be defaulted into Level One. Level Two would be composed of some PDD-NOS and HFA. Anybody considered Nonverbal or "severe" would be Level Three.

Interesting. For all that I've seen people worry about meeting the old criteria for Asperger's but not the new criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder, I find it easier to see how I might fit the new criteria than I did with the old Asperger's criteria. I think that's mostly due to the greater concreteness about what sorts of things the criteria include.

I still suspect I wouldn't qualify for a diagnosis, though, since I suspect I wouldn't meet criterion D.

Meh, I don't agree that language development is just something unrelated grafted onto autism. For many autistic people the cause of the other traits that get us called autistic also cause language trouble. I wish they had added some language-focused criteria into that second group -- then you wouldn't have to have language trouble to be diagnosed but it could still count towards diagnosis. Frankly I find the centering of social criteria (must meet all three to be autistic) weird because when language is involved it's often closer to central than social (which is often about the periphery of the autistic person rubbing against the periphery of nonautistic or not-same-type-of-autistic people, or else a result of lacking early socialization experiences, atypical sensory perception, multitasking trouble, etc.) is.

I think the same thing - I can more easily apply these criteria to myself. Except I am pretty sure I meet criterion D.

The centering of social criteria is what has had me wondering if the new criteria will exclude people who should otherwise fit, and miss elements of autism that can be impairing in NT society but are not included in the criteria themselves.

Looking at the criteria and the severity, while I believe I fit these criteria, I feel that the "Restricted interests & repetitive behaviors" category actually contributes to some of the "Social Communication" category in a fairly direct way at this point in my life. There are other issues with social communication, of course, but if I don't talk about my interests, for example, I am not going to talk much at all. This is separate from the fact that I almost entirely prefer dealing with people one on one, or maybe at most two other people before I start to feel overloaded and lose track of the conversation except in particular structured environments related to my interests.

Hit every one again. I think beyond that fact that daily life has given me some short term charm, my AS goes all the way to 11.

Ive always wondered why I repeat certain stock phrases of little apparent meaning aloud to myself, especially in the bathroom when others arent around. I rarely do it around others and feel self-conscious/briefly stressed if one slips out around someone else (usually if I didnt notice they were near). Interesting that that's covered.

That's called echolalia, in case you want to google it.

Anyway, I hate the criteria. Half because I don't fit and half because it's written so... IDK. Written with undertones of "autistic people suck." But they're awful criteria.

What is it if you repeat your own words and phrases? I get stuck in loops where my brain just repeats the same sentence constantly.

Anyway, sidetrack. I like the latest version better than the previous draft, though I still think AS should be its own category.

I like it but feel the language stuff should still be included in a fifth category that "may" be exhibited.

Palilalia is when you repeat your own words and phrases.



Any particular reason why?

But if the purpose of the criteria is to have a list that you can go down, so you can divide people up into autistic and non-autistic, what's the point of listing traits that aren't necessary or sufficient? May as well point out that they might have red hair or might be tall.

I think that didn't come across right. I don't mean that language development is unrelated to autism. It's related, and closely related too.

What I meant was that if the child's ONLY problem is with language development--if he's interacting with people and learning in a generally NT way, hasn't got sensory issues, doesn't have transition problems, expresses affection and uses non-verbals effectively, etc.--then he shouldn't be diagnosed with autism, because just having problems with learning language isn't the same as having autism.

There are lots of kids who are diagnosed autistic today, usually PDD-NOS, except that the only issue they have is with learning speech--sort of a specific learning disability, like dyslexia only with speaking instead of reading. These kids shouldn't be diagnosed with autism because they just don't need the same things as autistics need; they only need to learn about speech. There are many reasons for not learning to speak well, and autism is only one of many. Just like you don't diagnose the flu in everyone who has a fever, you shouldn't diagnose autism in everyone who has problems with speech. But they've been doing that lately anyway.

Kids with sensory integration disorder only--who interact like NT kids and learn like NT kids--shouldn't be diagnosed with autism. "Repetitive movement disorder" exists as a diagnosis for people who don't have autism, but who stim so much that it interferes with their lives. (Let's not get into the fact that stims are useful and serve a purpose here.)

I just mean that it's nice that they've made it clear that speech is not the preeminent feature of autism--that it will be good not to have the automatic autism diagnosis for kids who have problems learning speech, but don't have any other autistic traits.

One of my daughter's former classmates was in that category and he was briefly labeled autistic. His parents never agreed with that. It seemed almost comically absurd as I watched him romp around the playground playing tag with the other kids. He was (is) socially very adept and smooth. Non-verbal signals are easily understood by him. When I first met him I assumed he was deaf. He seems like a deaf kid who can hear. I know that doesn't make any sense but that's how he comes across. He uses sign language and can't talk. Based on his high sociability, most people who meet him assume he is deaf and are astounded when he whirls around at the mention of his name.

For a brief time, he bore the autism label (absurdly) based entirely on his lack of speech. I guess they ultimately decided that it is silly to call somebody autistic when they are "king of the playground" and socialize like anything with the other kids but just don't talk. These days his label is "aphasic" which makes more sense. It simply means "doesn't talk".