Thread by @Richard_Autism

Something that has been on my mind recently, is that by arguing for a clinical need for PDA based on protecting certain autistic persons from reinforcement based approaches, actually establishes a clinical need for PDA in non-autistic persons too.

The reasons for this is simple. The SEND system is needs based, not diagnostic labels. So by (in their view) establishing PDA is needed for certain strategies, to prevent harm to certain individuals from reinforcement-based approaches...

... under the SEND system that reason would also be applicable to non-autistic persons with PDA. Which are in the academic literature. Remember Newson's cohort has non-autistic persons in it & she argued they all needed same strategies...

... Newson argued that reinforcement-based approaches do not work for her ENTIRE cohort, which included non-autistic persons with PDA in.

"Praise, reward, reproof, and punishment ineffective; behavioural approaches fail." (Newson et al, 2003, p597)...

... Bare in mind, there are sufficient examples in the PDA literature, that demonstrates PDA can be diagnosed as a standalone diagnostic entity...
researchgate.net/publication/35…

... arguments made by O'Nions and others that PDA is needed to protect persons from reinforcement based approaches are also equally applicable to non-autistic persons with PDA...

... So by making this arguments, the likes of O'Nions and others, are also establishing there is a need for PDA diagnosis for non-autistic persons within the UK SEND system...

... PDA has been diagnosed in non-autistic persons.
researchgate.net/publication/33…

The logical extension of this, is that by needlessly & fallaciously connecting PDA to autism, people should be discriminating against non-autistic persons with PDA.

@threadreaderapp please could you unroll?

Thank you in advance.