Proposal: include grading of autism in diagnosis.

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry if this has already been suggested on here, but the recent decision to abolish the diagnosis of AS and replace it with one of high functioning autism got me thinking. Many people, particularly NT a think of an autistic person as someone barely able to interact with the world and thus totally incapable of leading a normal life. Can anyone see how people's perception of an aspie ( or should I now say high functioning autismie - some how it doesn't have the same sound to it lol) could be adversely affected by this especially when it comes to disclosure on job applications ect.

My proposal is as follows.

Divide the diagnosis up into ten categories, with NT being level one and a person of the above severity being level 10. NT has to go on here as a yardstick or the whole thing fails. When the diagnosis is given the specialist would allocate a grade of severity using the above scale. For an aspie a diagnosis would be officially diagnosed as level 2 autism or level three autism. This would make disclosure less confusing for those receiving the information.

Alternatively since we refer to the autistic spectrum why not make NT red autism and and the most severe cases of autism violet autism? Aspies would be orange autism?

Just for the record I regard myself as having level 2 or orange autism ( almost NT)

Sounds like a good idea to me. There is far too much misconception about autism so anything that will bring more autism awareness is good.

the problem is criteria for grading. Is a non-verbal mathematics savant with excellent written communication skills lower than a verbal semi-social individual with severe sensory-overload problems? I think the bigger issue is that both are called "autistic" even though their symptoms are across the field from each other.

It'd give a more detailed diagnosis in terms of severity. Below are some problems I can think of.

It still wouldn't specify individuals' issues and hence may cause misunderstandings about their abilities.
It could further encourage the current "high" and "low" distinction in a negative way.
Level 2 people's difficulties might be underestimated/dismissed.
Including non-autistic people in the scale may encourage the concept that autism is just a personality type.

Well , I don't know really. It may be a good idea.

This is not an accurate description of the change. The Aspergers diagnosis has been replaced with an Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis and that is already graded into levels based on the impact/severity of the symptoms. There is no diagnosis of high functioning autism. There are three severity levels: requiring support, requiring substantial support, requiring very substantial support.

Many people are profoundly ignorant in many areas. No matter how many advances there are in molecular biology and genomics, there are people who don't believe in evolution. You can't fix ignorance with technical changes in the information people don't care to learn.

Don't disclose if you don't have to. People's perceptions will then be based on behavior alone, though disclosure may be helpful when people are forming misconceptions about the causes of unexpected behavior.


The proposed system falsely suggests that aspies are always less functionally impaired than other autistics. The forms of autism that had been identified as aspergers probably do correspond to particular clusters of symptoms, but the point of a severity scale is not to make people feel that they fit into a "less dysfunctional" category, when the evidence suggests this is not the case. Unemployment levels among aspies are not high because employers are confused about the definition of autism. They are high because many people cannot perform as expected in the roles required by employers. The new severity levels actually make more sense: if you only require a little support, you are level 1. If you require more support you are level 2 and if you require a lot more support you are level 3.

So under the new system you are level 1, if you require only minimal support. If you don't require any support then you are subclinical and no longer autistic but still in the broader autistic phenotype. If changes in circumstances later mean that you do require support, you will then get the diagnosis at whatever level is appropriate for the amount of support you need.

This is more practical and useful than either colors or a scale that says (incorrectly) "aspies are basically really close to normal, not like those other autistic people you are thinking of."

One could have "severe" Asperger's as well---hence, above "level three," "orange" autism. One could have "mild" classic autism as well--hence, levels 1-3, "orange" autism.

It would seem cool to a guy who's very much into categories and colors (like me)

Would this work in a clinical setting? I don't know.

I believe the "degree" of autism, at times, depends upon the mood of the person with autism.

I can see potential, but I disagree with the raw idea.

While it may help someone with high-functioning autism (who scores say, a 2), it would do the complete opposite for anybody with a more severe score.

Support required works better, in my opinion.

education and social service agencies almost "need" to classify a person as either "high-" or "low-"functioning, their need, not ours.

It is almost a political statement to say, we are all middle-functioning.

And I can here the bureaucrats sputtering now . . . but . . but what help would the person need ? ? Why don't we ask the person in a respectful way and see.

1. a normal life is probably over-rated anyways, who the hell defines that anyways?
2. NT is not autistic, so why would NT be 'red autism' when its not even autism, it is a total lack of autism? Also considering having severe autism does not really have anything to do with violence why should severe autism be referred to as violent autism, then they would think low functioning people with autism can't interact with the world at all and all that as well as that they should be feared and should be regarded as you might regard a violent troll.

3 I don't like the scale being attatched to NT....I don't think there is 'almost NT' either someone has typical neurology and brain functioning or they don't. The levels of autism should be based on functioning if someone has autism they aren't 'almost normal' with a couple unusual traits....that isn't autism if it does not cause any significant impairment in functioning than it shouldn't be diagnosed as anything.

That particular proposal does not really make sense to me at all.

ASD is a learning difference. There are certain skills and world view knowledge that are learned differently, if taught according to a persons needs, skills can be learned. If a person is actively learning the score on the scale would need to be constantly changing.

I think it is more than a learning difference, but certainly does still effect that.

Studies have shown that infants actions initiate a majority of infant/adult interactions regardless of the adult's cultural, education or financial background. Babies that are labeled ASD have sensory processing and world view/ perception differences and are less tuned in to people as sources of learning and imitating, so they frequently miss out on very important language, social, and cognitive development learning opportunities. This leads to symptoms of ASD. When parents and caretakers understand this and compensate by deliberately overcoming their tenancies and connect and engage the baby in meaningful ways, the baby learns language, social, and cognitive skills. Unfortunately there are few good Parent Implemented Intervention training programs, even though they are the least costly and most effective, and improve home quality of life for the entire family.

Studies have shown that infants actions initiate a majority of infant/adult interactions regardless of the adult's cultural, education or financial background. Babies that are labeled ASD have sensory processing and world view/ perception differences and are less tuned in to people as sources of learning and imitating, so they frequently miss out on very important language, social, and cognitive development learning opportunities. This leads to symptoms of ASD. When parents and caretakers understand this and compensate by deliberately overcoming their tenancies and connect and engage the baby in meaningful ways, the baby learns language, social, and cognitive skills. Unfortunately there are few good Parent Implemented Intervention training programs, even though they are the least costly and most effective, and improve home quality of life for the entire family.

I have to admit the whole question doesn't make sense to me, McGrath. Sorry.

Still sounds like more than a learning difference....I mean it would seem a lot of people on the spectrum can have a hard time processing a lot of information/outside input, so also likely to be a processing difference. Also I can see how trying to force an autistic baby/child to interact normally and essentially come off as having a normal functioning brain could backfire hardcore by overwhelming the poor child and having them develop a sense of they are always wrong and needing to be corrected, fixed.