Thread by @Richard_Autism

After much musing, this afternoon. I think a thread on partly why any credible or reputable autism expert should say PDA is NOT autism is probably warranted.

It centers on Newson’s work; it is simply can NOT be used to argue PDA is autism. She does not draw PDA overlapping autism. Saying PDA has a different cause of social communication issues to autism.

First point, Newson said this herself, that PDA is not autism and including not rebranded autism (particularly Aspergers). adc.bmj.com/content/archdi…

This feels like a response to Wing & Gould’s comments in 2002, about PDA lacking specificity and it is not a syndrome.
kar.kent.ac.uk/62694/431/Natu…

There are other facts to support this. Newson removed those who displayed autism features from her sample.

Newson added Specific Language Impairment to her definition for Pervasive Developmental Disorders. How persons with PDD-NOS can transition into any of these 4 syndromes, including non-autistic persons transitioning into PDA.

Newson said that all persons with a PDD needed coding issues, which is not needed as problems understanding other’s communication would be under “Pervasive” definition.

Definitions for "Pervasive" that Newson used were from DMS-4. Christie provides it in his conference talks.

We know PDA is does not conform to accepted autism understandings. I point out these reasons here:
thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/pda-new-type-d…
&
…emandavoidancecom.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/19th-a…

Likewise, Newson never based PDA on the Triad of Impairment that underpins modern autism criteria. Newson knew about the Triad of Impairment and used it to diagnose autism before created PDA behaviour profile.
cambridge.org/core/books/aut…

Reference for the triad of impairment.
aettraininghubs.org.uk/wp-content/upl…

Newson never systematically assessed her PDA cases for autism features, or for autism itself. As said previously, she excluded those who showed autism features. This is kind of the opposite of screening her sample for autism.
pdaresource.com/files/An%20exa…

We know those who would often be referred for a PDA diagnosis do not conform to autism stereotypes and would be unlikely to receive a diagnosis under DSM-5 criteria.
…emandavoidancecom.files.wordpress.com/2020/08/01-aug…

Newson was not trying to make PDA part of autism. She was trying to show that PDA was substantially different to autism and it is why PDA is needed within PDDs.

"“hanging together as an entity” is not enough if that entity is not significantly different from both autism and Asperger’s syndrome, either separately or apart" (Newson et al, 2003, p599).

My point to all this is that there are multiple good grounds to think that PDA is NOT autism, from Newson’s research. Importantly, that it appears that Newson included some non-autistic persons in her database.

There is NO way to sure/ confident ALL her cases were autistic. Hence, we can NOT assume PDA is autism.

This means that assumptions and logic based on Newson’s work that PDA is autism fall-down very quickly as they are simply wrong. This should be obvious to any credible or reputable autism expert.

This ignores other reasons as to why PDA is not autism, such as it appears a self-validation exercise to assume PDA is autism.
…emandavoidancecom.files.wordpress.com/2020/08/03-aug…

Some would argue that we should favour the opinions of clinicians and practitioners who espouse the view PDA is an ASD, due to how often they interact with certain persons, who might conform to some interpretations of PDA.

The weakness here is that there is no consensus over what PDA looks like. That a PDA dx is not an indicator if a person has PDA or not.

Furthermore, it is just as possible that an equivalent expert with a different background and working experiences’ opinions on PDA are just as valid as any autism specialists are. We just do not know due to a lack of research.

Newson created her own diagnostic grouping, meaning PDA pretty much end up anyway by creating another new one.
autismeastmidlands.org.uk/wp-content/upl…

To those who say PDA must be autism as it was Pervasive Developmental Disorder. Newson’s version is different to the accepted one. It lacks Rett's Syndrome & Childhood Disintegrative Disorder.

I would also refer you back onto how Newson also required persons with a Pervasive Developmental Disorder to also have "Coding" issues; she is still thinking in terms of her "Pervasive Developmental Coding Disorders" diagnostic grouping.

Back to the original point of the thread. Ethically, researchers should be trying to falsify hypotheses and challenge their views. We should be conducting scientific method-based research.
researchgate.net/publication/33…

ALL autism researchers have an obligation to improve the standards of common poor-quality autism research (which many PDA studies fall into). acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…

It is not scientific to try and maintain the integrity of someone’s understandings of something. I.e. It is unethical of Christie to say this.

To me someone saying PDA is an ASD, is like someone saying that ABA is scientific, has good evidence base and helps autistic persons.

Yet, many autistic persons, would recognize such views on ABA to nonsense. Many autism experts challenge the unscientific evidence base of ABA/ PBS; arguing we deserve better.

Example, Likes of @ABAControversyUK blocks people who do not listen to case against ABA etc. The situation is no different for PDA in my views.

We know that assuming PDA is an ASD is negatively impacting PDA research.
…emandavoidancecom.files.wordpress.com/2020/08/03-aug…

To me it is reasonable not take anyone seriously if they are assuming PDA is autism after they have been presented with at least this information. Especially, if an expert should already know this information about Newson’s work.

This is not a maybe/ if/or matter, to me this is a serious topic, about maintaining the (little) integrity of autism research, policy, and practice. Why else would I argue that level of evidence PDA strategies require are RCTs? link.springer.com/article/10.100…

This transcends people’s careers and reputations. This is about trying to help people’s lives through good quality scientific-method research and principles.

This is a red line for me, it is primarily through demanding such standards, that autistic lives will be improved.

It is a test of an autism expert’s integrity in how they portray PDA.

I just want to underline the point that one definitely NOT assume PDA is autism from Newson's research.

So we know that Newson never assessed her case for autism or systematically autistic features, covered previously in the thread. It is not stated that Newson screened for conditions that might present similarly to PDA.

We know that autism has strong overlaps with certain conditions, particularly Attachment Disorder. Which it is noted that PDA might be a form of Attachment Disorder.
ingentaconnect.com/contentone/bil…

The strong overlap between attachment disorder, autism and PDA has been noted:
thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-29/janu…

It is only within the last decade, that serious efforts have been to be able to reliably differentiate autism from Attachment Disorder, with the likes of the Coventry Grid tool:
ingentaconnect.com/contentone/bil…

So these tools were not available to Newson's research, spanned 1975 - 2000.

Newson did not specialise in Attachment Disorders, but in Coding issues based conditions (she worked in such a clinic).

Coding issues is when a person cannot process or make sense of certain aspects of communication.

Simply put, there is no way to be sure/ confident Newson's PDA research does not contain persons with Attachment Disorder and NOT autism.

Similar arguments can be made for other conditions.

Newson did not even compare PDA to other conditions referred to at her Coding Disorders clinic, mainly dyslexia and dysphasia.

How Newson researched PDA & the general poor quality of it, make it impossible to credibly argue that PDA is autism from her research.

Providing perspective, Specific Language Impairment has a prevalence rate of 5% - 8%. Using Newson's views on Pervasive Developmental Disorders to say they are now part of the autism spectrum gives a few million more autistic persons.
frontiersin.org/articles/10.33…

Which I personally think is an absurd situation to contemplate. I suspect many other autistic persons & autism experts would also mirror. Perhaps, this was a reason why Newson says PDA is not an ASD?

Another reason why one cannot assume PDA is autism.

@threadreaderapp please can you unroll again?