<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>
        <![CDATA[Latest posts for the topic "Towards a new definition of autism" recent IAN discussions]]>
    </title>
		<link>http://kki.qorvis.com/forum/posts/list/7.page</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Latest messages posted in the topic "Towards a new definition of autism"]]></description>
		<generator>JForum - http://www.jforum.net</generator>
			<item>
				<title>Towards a new definition of autism</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ The APA's Working Group on autism has published a recommendation for changes to the next DSM manual (DSM-V). If the recommendation is implemented there will be vast changes as follows:

The category of Pervasive Developmental Disorder will be removed and replaced by Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD).


Under the umbrella of ASD there will be five sub-categories. Autistic Disorder, PDD/NOS and Asperger Syndrome will be removed and replaced by the following with two additional sub-categories added:

1. Severe ASD
2. Moderate ASD
3. Mild ASD
4. Atypical ASD
5. Normal Variation ASD

Normal variation ASD is described as persons who do not have any development problems but who, on a Bell Curve of personality types, tend to fall in the introverted personality type category. Studies of the general population consistently demonstrate that about 25% of the total population fall into the category of introvert personality type with 75% of the total population falling into the extrovert personality type.

If these recommendations are implemented the current 'autism epidemic' will pale in comparison to what the new prevelance rates will eventually report. It is entierly reasonable that the prevelance rates will skyrocket to a possible 1/4 rate for ASD in the general population.

These recommendations points to a major shift in the conceptualization of what autism is, away from a conceptualization of autism as a developmental disorder, to one of a 'trait' or personality disorder.

Comments?

Here is the link:

http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/Research/DSMIV/DSMV/DSMRevisionActivities/DSM-V-Work-Group-Reports/Neurodevelopmental-Disorders-Work-Group-Report.aspx
     ]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://kki.qorvis.com/forum/posts/list/319.page#1627</guid>
				<link>http://kki.qorvis.com/forum/posts/list/319.page#1627</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, June 8, 2009]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ RAJ]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:Towards a new definition of autism</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Hi RAJ. Yes, it is fascinating to see how this is developing. 

For our readers: the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) is the psychiatric "bible" - the criteria they use to decide what condition a person has. It literally defines each disorder. They were hoping very much that by now we'd have biological markers for autism, and that the condition would no longer by one based on observation of behavior, but unfortunately we have not progressed to that point yet.

I actually had the chance to see a talk on this yesterday, and what they said was that there would be just ONE diagnosis: Autism Spectrum Disorder (rather than autism, PDD-NOS, Asperger's) etc. If you had it, you had it, and then it would be further described by various levels of social/communicative ability (including language ability, IQ) and level of "fixated interests" and repetitive behaviors. They are actually trying to simplify. That "5" level was not part of the diagnosis, by the way, but a way to distinguish "eccentric" from "autistic."

They are still working on this, and are taking input at http://www.dsm5.org under the "Make a Suggestion" section. They expect the DSM-V to be out in the Spring of 2012.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://kki.qorvis.com/forum/posts/list/319.page#1629</guid>
				<link>http://kki.qorvis.com/forum/posts/list/319.page#1629</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Wed, June 10, 2009]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Connie (IAN Staff)]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:Towards a new definition of autism</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Thanks for the information, RAJ.  It appears as though the boundaries between the various levels of "severity" are not clearly defined. The implications for this type of definition are troubling when considering the problem of interventions in this world of scarce resources.  Should someone who is rated "severly autistic" automatically be provided more intensive intervention than someone who is rated as less severe, on the assumption that the more severe person has a more ground to cover in "catching up"?  Or perhaps decision makers will take the opposite point of view - that the most severely affected people are "lost causes", and the resources should be expended on the less severely affected individuals, on the theory that they are more likely to "make it."  And what about educational programs?  Will school systems now want to provide intensive programs only to certain severity categories?  Surely they will not want to provide services for the bottom category, the "introverted personality" subtype.  Yet this subtype legally falls under the ASD category which is protected under IDEA.

Many intriguing questions...]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://kki.qorvis.com/forum/posts/list/319.page#1639</guid>
				<link>http://kki.qorvis.com/forum/posts/list/319.page#1639</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, July 2, 2009]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ imsnooper]]></author>
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

