Difference between HFA and LFA

Post Reply New Topic

I been doing some thinking about my mother and I was talking with my Dad this morning about the IQ's of my siblings and me. My Dad say his IQ was around 120-130, me 160 (I think there was something wrong the test ), my 8 year old half brother 47, my ex-stepmother 74 (we were been all tested).

Dad estimates that my mother has an IQ of around 80-90, the same goes for my 20-year-old sister (who also had a slightly learning in high school), my other 9-year-old half brother around 130-140 and the same for my 18-year-old half sister.

I think my mother might be on the spectrum (towards the higher functioning end) but they are undiagnosed. If my mother has an IQ below 100, would that make her a LFA instead of a HFA or AS?

The person who diagnosed me with AS said that people with an IQ of lower then 70 would be classed LFA if they were autistic. Im in the UK and the diagnostic criteria might be different where you are.

From here: http://autism.about.com/cs/disorderinde ... debate.htm

Of course I find some of that questionable, as I am not LFA, but have severe social impairments.

This is from http://www.card.ufl.edu/handouts/diagnosed.html



My first AS DX used GARS (Gilliam Autism Rating Scale), not sure about the second. Note to self: ask.

I happen to feel that the IQ 70 gauge of LFA/HFA is misleading since there are people living with 70 IQ's who would be considered "High Functioning".

I feel a better gauge of HFA/LFA would be how well a person affected can manage on their own in life.

And even then there would still be gray area as there would lots of discussion as to where to draw the line.

I agree with Scoots. There is a lot more than IQ involved with how well you can function, and indeed more is considered than just that. IQ is considered as the big dividing line, only because mental retardation is such an overt impediment to functioning. It is a misconception that it is THE line.
If you think of LFA as the designation for severely low-functioning, then HFA only means you're not an idiot, and higher functioning than they are. Which, really, is what that designation is. They considered Raymond Babbitt from Rainman high-functioning. Think about that.

I am having a hard time making sense of this. I guess by some definitions, I am low functioning. Also by some definitions, I am ret*d. I am even considered mentally handicapped, even though I haven't taken an official IQ for over 20 years. I know for sure that in many ways I am an idiot and in other ways I am the opposite of that. In some ways I am on the low end of the spectrum and in some ways I am on the high end. There are some things in life I can manage and some things I am unable to manage. I also show "aggressive responses directed outward, when disruptions of ritualistic mannerisms or activities occur" which, according to the University of Oregon web site is more common in LFA. Go figure. I guess this is why my doctor just referrs to me as being autistic. I guess I am all over the spectrum in different ways.

I am not sure what you mean by thinking about Raymond Babbit being HFA, his character was based on real people. Someone who is low functioning would have less capability than those portrayed in Rainman. Most people who are DX'd with FLA are not capable of speech, Raymond Babbot clearly was. Aslo, I have always displayed some of the behavior that was portrayed in Rainman, especially under stress (hitting myself in the head, echoing myself and others, etc...), yet my DX is AS because I was speaking fluently at a young age. So, what is there to think about? I fail to understand the logic in that statement.

True, Rainman wasn't mute. But he was definitely not high-functioning.

Plus, low-functioning of the spectrum isn't relegated away from Aspergers. It's just not as common in Aspies as it is in Autistic, Retts, and Childhood Disintegrative Disorders.

You don't get the logic in it? What is there to think about? The point, is that although you think you are low-functioning, you are not THAT low functioning. And as low-functioning as he was, he was still considered high-functioning. So don't delude yourself.
The LFA mark means really really low functioning. Would you consider yourself lower functioning than Raymond Babbitt? Also, would you say he has an IQ higher than 70? From watching the movie, I wouldn't think so. So how was he considered HFA, if IQ was the line? Doesn't that suggest that IQ isn't the only line, just the line latched onto by incompetent laymen?

No, in many respects I am higher functioning than Raymond Babbit and in some respects I am very simialr. I agree that he was high functioning because I know that most low functioing people can't even do simply things into their adult life, like tie their own shoes, or dress themselves. I cannot even begin to assume what Babbit's IQ would have been. From everything I have learned, IQ is not the only determination, as many people with LFA have IQ's higher than 70. What I did not understand was where the posts said "think about that. Babbit was HFA, if he were LFA he would have not been able to leave with Cruise as he did and it wouldn't have been a the movie that it was.

Sure he was HFA. Have you ever encountered anyone with LFA IRL, or even online for that matter? I am not saying I am LFA. What I was saying that if I was DX'd according to some of the definitions of LFA and HFA that are presented in various places, I would be LFA. Many people, especially here, with AS, do not require assisted living, or live under the threat of being placed in a group home, or institution in order to be in a suitable environment because of their AS. Many people here do not require therapy 24/7, as has been stated about me by doctors. Most people here are not considered emotionally and socially ret*d. How can the people here, who do not share these traits with me, even begin to understand this stuff? It isn't something that can be understood by reading a few paragraphs on a web page and it certainly isn't anything that anyone here is qualified to counsel me on. Some people say I am fortunate to have a companion that cares about me and a good doctor that isn't trying to cure me and really understand me, but in reality, I have what I need. No, I guess that I am not common in respects to Asperger's. In fact, to the best of my knowledge there are very few people in this area that are more severely affected by autism than I am. If I were DX'd based on my social and emotional condition (I stopped developing socially and emotionally around 7 years old and have been told that many of my social behaviors are equal to those of a 4, or 5 year olds) I would be LFA, however my intellectual development is more in line with what many would expect from Asperger's. As I said: I am all over the spectrum. IQ is irrelevant, as I said before: some people with LFA do have IQs over 70, it is just more common for LFA's to have lower IQs.

The distinction is arbitrary. Based on what people do and don't value the most and what people do and don't think is the most central to autism and which people have the most power when you're being defined.

I'm worse at some things than Rain Man. Does that make me low functioning? I'm better at some things than Rain Man. Does that make me high functioning? Then why bother to believe that a person's skills can be measured as all being on one level to begin with?

If it were just about one narrow area, I could see measuring things that way. But autism involves so many different areas that you can't generalize from one area to the entire person. In fact if you do, you're going to end up harming the person if you have any power over them, because you'll over or under estimate them on other things depending on which functioning level you've assigned.

My sigfile says it all, at any rate. (And I've been called both. I reject both.)