Thread by @Richard_Autism

Going reading O'Nions recent work. At least they have referenced one article of mine. Ignored critique of EDA-Q in said article which is bizarre.

@HappeLab
Sigh, perhaps one day I will view O'Nions work to be equivalent to mine quality, but this is not one those days.
link.springer.com/article/10.100…

@HappeLab I doubt that article will score well on here, sigh.
rationaldemandavoidance.com/2021/05/22/a-d…

Link to article of mine. Screenshot of critique of the EDA-Q.
researchgate.net/publication/33…

Interesting apparently O'Nions is stating that routines and structure might benefit some persons with PDA, yet ignores how this was actually in Newson's original research...
autismeastmidlands.org.uk/wp-content/upl…

There seems to be a concerted effort to argue there might be a collider bias in Newson's research, instead of actually checking Newson's research statistics for if there could be a collider bias.

@HappeLab We know if there is a collider bias, then it could only be present in between 25% - 33% of Newson's cohort: Bulk of Newson's cohort was recruited after expansion of autism spectrum to include Aspergers. This is just sloppy.
rationaldemandavoidance.com/2020/10/17/wha…

@HappeLab It also does not consider other reasons for differences between PDA and autism, that are results of Newsons methodology; also more pertinently that it is demonstrably true PDA is not autism.

@HappeLab Article ignores conflict of interest present in the Being Misunderstood report, due to those who consulted on the report. Also ignores other literature, which argues growth in PDA is driven by non-autistic stakeholders & activities like conferences.

Screenshot if from here:
link.springer.com/article/10.100…

@HappeLab It also ignores how Help4Psychology seem to have created their own PDA definitions, which are NOT representative of literature:
rationaldemandavoidance.com/2021/04/25/pda…

@HappeLab There is also no review of the use of the EDA-Q in PDA research and therefore no discussion of just HOW important the EDA-Q is to knowledge base on PDA. Likewise, no discussion on how often EDA-Q is used in diagnosing PDA.

@HappeLab This seems to be a poor quality article that come to expect from Liz O'Nions and others on PDA.

@HappeLab Another example of sloppy literature review, is discussing how behaviours seen in PDA do not respond well to reinforcement-based approaches, is described in recent work. Newson et al reported that praise, reward & punishment as ineffective, page 597

@HappeLab
"Praise, reward, reproof, and punishment ineffective; behavioural approaches fail." Newson et al (2003, p597).
adc.bmj.com/content/archdi…

@HappeLab There are good reasons why I question if O'Nions is a reputable information on PDA. Latest article is not doing much to ease my concerns.

Interesting that it seems to be another study that shows that PDA behaviours decrease with age. Then refer to Gillberg et al (2015). Again, I discuss this the article of mine I reference & I discuss implications of it.

@HappeLab It does seem a reasonable statement that this article by you & others would have benefitted from more engagement with Woods (2020).

@HappeLab I emailed O'Nions a copy of this blog post to comment on, during mid March 2021, a month before this was accepted. It is possible that they had time to read it.
rationaldemandavoidance.com/2021/04/25/pda…

@HappeLab I also think some of Gillberg et al (2015) high drop off rate of those meeting caseness for PDA is due to their diagnostic threshold being low, the core PDA traits (as I define them) do not need to be present to meet Gillberg et al (2015) threshold.

@HappeLab I refer to Gillberg et al (2015) threshold as "Subclinical PDA Traits/ Broader PDA Phenotype".

@HappeLab Point is that if Gillberg et al (2015) are diagnosing persons who do contain most features of the Demand Management Cycle, which is informed by some of O'Nions research. It is unlikely PDA behaviours would be developed & maintained as a CYP matures.

@HappeLab Thus explaining why it why Gillberg et al (2015) decrease so much in their sample.

I notice mention of "strategic" or "manipulative" social demand avoidance behaviours. This is a plus point.

Current view is that both descriptors can be applied, potentially changing with context.

Glad targeting behaviours with intent was mentioned.

@HappeLab cannot say I am impressed with this apparent "obsession" with researching PDA in autism & fallacious axiom that PDA is an ASD.

@HappeLab There seem to be an issue of selective referencing. No mention of EDA-Q detecting PDA in non-autistic persons. Presumably, you & others would say PDA is an ASD, EDA-Q was detecting autistic persons, because it was detecting PDA. Or "false positives"

@Happe This research by yourself, O'Nions & others is about refining EDA-Q's ability to detect PDA in autistic CYPs, so there is a COI in not reporting the EDA-Q detects PDA in non-autistic persons; as it is a lot harder to justify this research's rationale.

@HappeLab It begs the question, why not also do this research for PDA in non-autistic persons? Oh, PDA is seen in non-autistic persons, PDA cannot be autism. Means one cannot assume PDA is autism. So it is easier to not mention it and avoid such issues.

@HappeLab Links to where EDA-Q has detected PDA in non-autistic persons.
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
&
pdasociety.org.uk/wp-content/upl…
&
autism.org.uk/what-we-do/pro…

@HappeLab unless O'Nions has referenced Garralda in their PhD thesis, it would appear that she has not yet referenced their article in print...
adc.bmj.com/content/88/7/5…

@HappeLab An obvious place to cite Garralda (2003) would have been here, with those disagreeing with PDA. Then again, considering the article is juxtaposing disagreement against caregivers & those with lived experience of PDA.

@HappeLab Citing Garralda (2003) then undermines this juxtaposition as it is disagreement with PDA before growth in interest in PDA... Also seems to no mention of Wing's consistent critique of PDA over two decades either...

@HappeLab Likewise a lack of coverage with why PDA has been controversial before growth in interest in PDA.

@HappeLab Seems observation of "cherry picking"/ "selective referencing" is valid.

Not the first either in articles by yourself, O'Nions & others, I might point out.
osf.io/8sbvw/

@HappeLab At least this latest article, substantiates my point the reviewer of this submission of mine was talking male bovine excrement, as O'Nions does view PDA to be autism in their latest article.

@HappeLab "Across the broader autism spectrum as we now know it," p2.

I have no idea what you & others are specifically referring to here?

There is NO agreed definition of what broader autism spectrum is & discuss this here:

@HappeLab This article of yours and others, seems to support my view that a prematurely formed a community of practice surrounding fallacious assumption "PDA is an ASD", and that such research is a self-validation exercise.

https://twitter.com/Richard_Autism/status/1396008470915190784

@HappeLab previous tweet contains a screenshot of where Christie (2007) discusses PDA's controversies, Wing and Gould's views on PDA.

@HappeLab
"The last ten years have seen a rapid increase in interest in PDA in the UK," (O'Nions et al, 2021, p2).

Sets time period of rise in interest in PDA is discussed in & strong disagreements over it. Article seems not to cover earlier critique.

@HappeLab not reviewing the literature for research results on the EDA-Q seems to be substantial error. Especially when omitting Garralda (2003), as some of their observations are supported by research with EDA-Q.

https://twitter.com/Richard_Autism/status/1396763804827070465

https://twitter.com/Richard_Autism/status/1396024085163954176

@HappeLab previous tweets show where at least one of Garralda (2003) observations are supported by research results, with EDA-Q and EDA-QA.

@HappeLab There does seem to be a COI in not discussing such research results & Garralda, as it undermines attempts to try and support the view PDA as an ASD in the article.

@HappeLab If one acknowledges Garralda is correct PDA has features of ADHD, then it contradicts assertions PDA is autism. As PDA cannot be more than its constituent parts. A + B + C ≠ A.

https://twitter.com/Richard_Autism/status/1396002538944663557

@HappeLab I would suggest that, perhaps a contributing factor in why growth in PDA has outstripped its research, is because certain "leading experts" (includes more than authors of this article) are not providing balanced & accurate information on PDA?

@HappeLab It would be substantially harder to justify forming a community of practice, and doing certain research, if one accurately portrays contested nature of PDA & credits certain research results to those who first predicted them.

@HappeLab I am pretty certain that you and others in the article have misrepresented the literature, in stating many independent research groups have shown PDA to be present in autistic persons. Certainly have overstated the case.

@HappeLab first point, Eaton & Banting is a adult case study... It is literally in the article title.
doi.org/10.1108/204209…

@HappeLab Gillberg et al (2015), the age range of participants is 15 - 24, mean 19.1 years; SD 2.6 years (p981). Hardly children here.

@HappeLab Also contradicting Gillberg et al (2015) prediction that PDA can be seen in up to a few percent of human populations. Also Gillberg's view PDA is common and possibly a new type of childhood disorder. link.springer.com/article/10.100…
&
acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…

@HappeLab Simple rebuttal to O'Nions et al (2015) is that they viewed PDA to be autism subgroup.
link.springer.com/article/10.100…
While at the same they ignored the ongoing debates in PDA literature, including contradictory results & views.
osf.io/8sbvw/

@HappeLab we also know that O'Nions et al (2015) used an arbitrary threshold to categorise who had PDA and did not have PDA. That one of the persons with PDA was not autistic.

@HappeLab so one can argue that O'Nions et al (2015) arbitrarily decided to view PDA as an ASD. Due to arbitrary cut-off it is difficult to take much from that research.

@HappeLab Just because some have chosen to view PDA as an ASD subgroup & have pursued a research agenda to support their outlook, does not mean that other perspectives on PDA are less than the authors of O'Nions et al (2015).

@HappeLab as pointed out earlier in the thread we already know that at least of the divergent opinion on PDA is valid, e.g., that PDA has characteristics that can be attributed towards ADHD.

@HappeLab The point I am making here, just because there is a lack of evidence into divergent perspectives of PDA, does not meant that you, or O'Nions or other "PDA is an ASD" advocates can state PDA is an ASD subtype/ subgroup/ profile.

@HappeLab Or likewise, claim there is a consensus around what PDA is. That is not science, research should not be done to support a particular outlook at the expense of others.

@HappeLab The same points are equally applicable to other research referenced in O'Nions et al (2018) and Eaton and Weaver (2020), which both view PDA to be an ASD.

@Happe The point so far, is that most of these examples so far covered are not exactly independent are they?

@HappeLab O'Nions et al (2015) has similar authors with O'Nions et al (2018). Likewise Christopher Gillberg co-authored O'Nions et al (2015) & Gilllberg et al (2015). Not too mention you & O'Nions were assisted Eaton & Weaver.

@HappeLab I would also add that Eaton and Weaver developed their PDA definitions based on their clinical opinions, which is insufficient rationale to warrant adopting them.

@HappeLab It is beg the question, what if a different created their own PDA definitions and made a partnership with researchers. Would you be equally supportive of such efforts?

@HappeLab Stuart et al (2020) is referenced, the issue here is that one cannot be sure their sample is entirely autistic, as I mention on my commentary on their article (which O'Nions et al 2021 references).
researchgate.net/publication/33…

@HappeLab That leaves Green et al (2018). I can categorically say that one has been misrepresented as it was collected by @MAbsoud & he has been clear there were non-autistic CYP with PDA in his dataset...
pdasociety.org.uk/research-meeti….

@HappeLab The simple counter point all these "independent" research groups detecting PDA in autistic persons, is to list all the research groups & examples of non-autistic persons in the PDA literature...

https://twitter.com/Richard_Autism/status/1398940307287330818

@HappeLab previous tweet mentions where EDA-Q has detected PDA in non-autistic persons.

https://twitter.com/Richard_Autism/status/1396760014329716742

@HappeLab previous tweet sets out how there are non-autistic persons with PDA in Newson's cohort, and this is supported by similar statements in Newson et al (2003), Christie (2007) and Christie et al (2011).

@HappeLab "most of the children referred were complex and anomalous in their developmental profile and many reminded the referring professionals of children with autism or Asperger's syndrome." (Christie, 2007, p3).
ingentaconnect.com/contentone/bil…

@HappeLab There's an example of an non-autistic CYP with PDA, who has attachment disorder, from research in O'Nions PhD thesis. Important to note CYP with PDA were known to researchers, which contradicts view PDA is specific to autism!
pdaresource.com/files/An%20exa…

@HappeLab There is also a good candidate for a non-autistic person with PDA in Trundle et al (2017). Adult was assessed for PDA, not autism. Diagnosed with ADHD dyslexia, has substance issues (off the top of my head).
dx.doi.org/10.1108/JIDOB-…

I think I am done for now, @threadreaderapp please can you unroll?

Thank you in advance.