As part of my CAS PDA literature review, re-reading @milton_damian deconstructing, seems as pertinent as ever.
What brings me here is there are small signs in PDA literature from its inception, that it is not autism.
What brings me here is there are small signs in PDA literature from its inception, that it is not autism.
“Individuals with PDA tend to have over-active imagination as opposed to under-active, and this
clearly sets them apart from Wing's description of the autistic Triad of Impairments.”
kar.kent.ac.uk/62694/431/Natu…
clearly sets them apart from Wing's description of the autistic Triad of Impairments.”
kar.kent.ac.uk/62694/431/Natu…
This statement is important. DSM4, latter DSM5 autism criteria are based on triad of impairment, now a dyad of impairment.
Now if a feature is different, i.e. not associated to the triad of impairment, it is not associated to core features of autism. This should tell you PDA is NOT autism.
Considering all attempts to divide autism into subtypes have failed, if PDA is seen to not be different from autistic persons, it suggests PDA is NOT autism. The PDA literature tells you PDA is not autism. Should be obvious most people PDA is NOT autism.
I can provide other examples exactly like this. I have not commented on this specific example before and hence the tweeting.
Lit review is for @milton_damian & @sarasiobhan book chapter.
Lit review is for @milton_damian & @sarasiobhan book chapter.
Sorry mean if PDA is seen to be different to autistic persons, then it means PDA is NOT autism.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
