@ekverstania@lynchauthor@NeuroClastic I think it needs more thought being put into to be honest, into exactly how it works. I think that "autistic features", i.e. what many would call ASD, is a smaller component of autism, which is how autistic features interact with each observer's bias.
@ekverstania@lynchauthor@NeuroClastic Thinking aloud, I suspect autistic features themselves cannot be subtyped, but the broader autism phenomena probably can be.
You can have subtypes/ subgroups, but it they routed in observers bias, instead of intrinsic differences between autistic persons.
@ekverstania How I define autism is an interesting question.
@ekverstania I do not have time to do a blog post on this so I will do my best to cover here briefly.
@ekverstania First point is that, I think autism is complex, it is not a simple concept. Any such approach to do so, is going to have issues. At the same time, depending on the situation, I can be happy working with such models, like DSM-5 autism criteria.
So the more I reflect on the assumption that PDA is ASD/ autism subtype/ subgroup/ profile; the more rediculous it seems to me.
I am reflecting on the agenda of O'Nions et al (2016), where they seek to find PDA DISCO questions that can identify what the authors think is, in the autistic population. This is while being mistaken about Newson's PDA research.
Newson was not trying to find PDA in autistic persons, she was trying to show PDA is significantly different to Kanner's autism & Asperger's Syndrome, and thus PDA is needed. Newson included in non-autistic persons in her sample.
Finally got my hands on the Help4Psychology PDA article. Only skimmed over parts of it so far. Seeing they assumed PDA is linked to autism and base hypotheses on that. Still in my mental "pseudoscience" pile with much autism research, like most ABA research.
While it references some critical literature, it does not reference any my own, @milton_damian or @Allison66746425 scholarship. So much for engaging with critique.
Also Conflict of Interest seems not to be disclosed either in how Judy Eaton is a member of PDA Development and how she stands to gain from PDA being accepted as part of ASD & that her clinical practice is based on specialising in PDA.
@ekverstania You can add this response to the list of parallel's to PDA.
I am all for experiencing the validity of lived experience & empathising with other's perspectives.
@ekverstania From a literature perspective, we cannot successfully divide autism. Differences between subtypes break down under scrutiny.
Generally, autistic persons do not want autism to be subdivided too.
@ekverstania So if something is seen differently in any "subgroup" it is often due to something causing the difference. If autism itself, does not cause a behaviour or core feature of then this construct by definition cannot be autism.
@Gubb1e There are too many problems with that logic though.
First, PDA strategies are good practice.
Similar strategies are widely practiced inside & outside of autism, independently of PDA and have been for years.
@Gubb1e Most disorders are not that good at guiding prognoses or support packages.
There is no evidence of differential treatment between suggested autism subtypes.
SEND system is needs based, CYP should NOT need a PDA dx to get appropriate strategies.
@Gubb1e Arguments about rights to a PDA dx due to its strategies, are universal & therefore applicable to many persons, including many non-autistic persons.
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…