Thread by @Richard_Autism

That moment when you realise the "splitters" (instead of lumpers) are trying to split autism using something that is not autism (PDA).

Normally, I would find this ironic, but I am still a bit speechless by realising how arbitrary some some features are assigned.

I have been looking at questions assigned to "Surface Sociability" in EDA-Q & the DISCO.

The intent was to analyse these items to see if any are RRBIs.

I am struck by is just HOW much there is an emphasis on this ONE trait in the tools, compared to Newson's own observations.

There are 9 questions assessing Surface Sociability and lacking pride/ shame/ social identity/ responsibility. In the EDA-Q.
acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111…

To put it this way, that is 9 out of 30 questions assessed. From what I can tell all 9 were included in the 26-item EDA-Q.

There are 4 questions out of the revised 11 PDA DISCO questions.
link.springer.com/article/10.100…

I also looked at the revised 11 PDA DISCO questions directly:
static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1…

It is not stated in the EDA-Q article what questions belong to which trait, so I was having to cross-reference against Newson's descriptions & LWC PDA DISCO paper, which give us two handy tables.

Revised DISCO items for Surface Sociability, have descriptions:

"tearing up another person’s work, pulling off someone’s spectacles"

"A talk about fantasies as if real, or lie, or cheat, or steal?"

Revised DISCO items for Lability of Mood, have descriptons:

"use age peers solely as aids in own activities, e.g. to collect materials, to assist in building some construction, to take a specified part in a scenario created by A?"

And

"frequently tease, bully, refuse to take turns, make trouble?"

&

"first sight appear to be sociable and friendly but can slip from loving to violent behaviour or vice versa for no apparent reason?

How is "frequently tease, bully, refuse to take turns, make trouble?"

substantially different from

"tearing up another person’s work, pulling off someone’s spectacles"?

Surely, they can be part of "bullying" anyone?

"Does A use age peers solely as aids in own activities, e.g. to collect materials, to assist in building some construction, to take a specified part in a scenario created by A?"

Is listed as Lability of Mood, I think because of how lability of mood is due to "need for control". Behaviours are described as using to control an activity.

The "need for control" is a big assumption, like how assuming persons automatically have "Coding" problems due to presenting demand avoidance.

If you ignore the "need for control" aspect, how is

"Using age peers as mechanical aids, bossy and domineering" representative of "Experiences excessive mood swings and impulsivity" (NAS's version of Lability of mood)?

It is not.

I am not making this up.

For once, can something just be straight forward with PDA.

I am just at facepalm at the moment.

So the reason I am at facepalm, is there is a heavy emphasis on one trait in EDA-Q & DISCO, that has many arbitrary (value laden) decisions around what features are assigned to each specific behaviour trait.

And it is a trait that is not representative of PDA's core impairment & impairment effect, the demand avoidance from anxiety...

It must be said, these issues around assigning features to specific traits, are a reason why one should PDA tools with the behaviour profile they are designed for, or you can get some weird results.