Thread by @Richard_Autism

You know sometimes my arguments about PDA being valid/ supported by literature can be rather disconcerting due to the questions it raises.

So O'Nions & Neons discuss how PDA behaviours, can be seen outside of autism & have similar triggers to autism.
acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111…

They go on argue that using reinforcement based approaches can be detrimental to a person, as it leaves them without a functioning way of escaping aversive experiences.

Also go onto argue PDA is needed to protect persons from receiving commonly practiced reinforcement-based approaches.

I have argued that logically, PDA should also be diagnosed in non-autistic persons to also protect them from receiving commonly practiced reinforcement-based approaches.
Here slide 30.

Likewise, one could also argue PDA is needed to for better understanding such persons in non-autistic persons, using O'Nions & Neons arguments.

So what is exactly new information here?

Well, Brewer et al (2014), which is cited by O'Nions & Neons, does make certain points, as cited.

So this highlighted text, is important, in that it appears to explain a similar reinforcement process O'Nions proposes underpins development & maintenance of PDA behaviour.
link.springer.com/article/10.100…

I.e. Person is stressed by demand of a aversive situation. Person displays avoidance behaviours, such as tantrums/ voilence/ self-harm. Such behaviours force adult/ teacher to pause transition. Aversive demand is removed. Person gets negative reinforcement.

Brewer et al (2014) include stereotypy, like rocking and hand flapping in the problem behaviour. It serves a similar purpose in stress reduction to a aversive demand. Makes sense, autistic persons RRBIs increase, more we are stressed.

Why Brewer et al (2014) validates my logic PDA is needed to be diagnosed at lower thresholds & in non-autistic persons, is this bit.

Demand avoidance behaviours are seen outside of autism, including typically developing children. With similar/ same triggers.

Brewer et al, make this point directly before discussing the negative impacts of using reinforcement based approaches to remove avoidance behaviours in such situations, i.e. removing a person's coping mechanisms when distressed.

Which seems to support my point that non-autistic persons with PDA would also need protecting from automatic reinforcement based approaches.

It would also support PDA being used at lower diagnostic thresholds, such as those meeting threshold on the EDA-Q, so with non-pervasive demand avoidance, like Help4Psychology's "Rational Demand Avoidance" group.

Brewer et al (2014) are indirectly recognising that a person is stressed when displaying PDA behaviours. So if a CYP is meeting threshold for EDA-Q, or school refusing, they are also likewise going to be negatively impacted by reinforcement-based approaches.

Brewer et al, comments about universality of people/ CYP displaying demand avoidance behaviours due to stress, supports my point that @Allison66746425 work is applicable to O'Nions work. They are describing same/ similar processes.

The point of @Allison66746425 work I am referring too, is the part discussing the types of behaviours CYP express to display their self-agency in hard times (stressed). The work of Waskler.
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.11…

It raises more questions though. Like why have O'Nions & other not made the same logical conclusions I have? Why have O'Nions & others also arguing for PDA to be diagnosed & research outside of autism etc etc?

It seems absurd and unethical to me to only diagnose at higher threshold's when the arguments around its clinical use & researching PDA are applicable to lower diagnostic thresholds.

What do I know (rhetorical)?

@threadreaderapp Please could you unroll?

I need to continue the thread a bit more.

So the fact that Brewer et al (2014) were describing processes about how avoidance behaviours are maintained & developed is similar/ same as O'Nions proposes for PDA.

Supports the case for my Demand Management Cycle in PDA, and also for the adoption of the DSM-5 OCD diagnostic threshold for PDA. As it suggests it can be generalised onto non-autistic persons.

Seems I know something that appears to be valid.

Who would have thought that (rhetorical)?

@threadreaderapp please can you unroll?

(Again).