This is just a short thread containing all my present images on PDA (off the top of my head. Trying to group them in some sort of relevance.
So 4 circle Venn diagram is my version of Soppitt (2021, p299). The 5 circle is my own one based on current research results.
First image is the demand-management cycle (which should be in print soon). Second is my 3D model for viewing PDA.
First image is from Rosen et al (2021). The second image is my one based on the Rosen et al image, with "hoovering up" PDA features which "halo" the DSM-5 autism criteria.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I have a lot of issues with how some are attempting to define "Pathological Demand-Avoidance".
Seemingly arbitrarily claiming demand-avoidance is different in nature, because it is illogical/ irrational, from logical/ rational is one of them.
What is logical/ rational vs irrational/ logical is inherently subjective and value judgements, often often specific. Often PDA literature notes this is usually defined by an external observer's perspective.
Who gets to decide, if demand-avoidance is rational/ logical vs irrational/ illogical?
If you want an example, of why I am so critical of PDA Society's so called guidance on PDA diagnoses, the thread by @AnnMemmott highlights flaws when research only involves people with certain outlooks.
As I explain in the document below the so called guidance by PDA Society on how to identify PDA is biased by who they included in the research & why they asked them. rationaldemandavoidance.com/wp-content/upl…
Explained in reflections on recent @LancetChildAdol PDA articles its choice define PDA as within-person condition. If PDA Society had invited people with broader perspectives on PDA, probably would have produced different results for their research report threadreaderapp.com/thread/1836822…
Jonathan Green's response to Gillberg et al (2024) has also been published. Among other things, it calls for a transactional approach to PDA & transdiagnostic approach to PDA research. thelancet.com/journals/lanch…
Gillberg et al (2024b) response article seems relatively well balanced. Recognises points both Jonathan Green & I make, while arguing for their proposed PDA research agenda. Key point is importance of external observer value judgement about nature of PDA though!
Gillberg et al (2024b) calls for further research across stakeholders, moving away from mainly caregiver report. Which I agree with, e.g., see below: frontiersin.org/research-topic…
Almost complete vacuum in literature on Non-speaking PDAers/ PDAers with Intellectual Disability
If possible, I should mention that in the editorial!
I am bloody good at my understanding & knowledge of PDA, e.g., Newson's likely contribution to that vacuum.
Take below diagram from Newson 1996, p6. It shows Newson's Pervasive Developmenetal Coding Disorders grouping, which has PDA separate from autism, but also related to dyslexia & dysphasia. Diagram has an intelligence/ potential line, low on left (autism), high on right (PDA).
Newson arguably had an outdated view of link between intelligence & ability. Newson seems to assumes PDA is related to high intelligence. We know this as in Newson et al (2003, p596), states IQ is meaningless due to their demand-avoidance; i.e., lacking data for intelligence.
Oh demand-avoidance welcome back into life for the infinitive time. Oh but wait, is this demand-avoidance rational, or irrational? Who gets to decide if this demand-avoidance is rational, or irrational? How should one define if this demand-avoidance is rational, or irrational?
So I am avoiding reading an email response to a request for me to be able to do something potentially "cool". I am anxious because the "cool" activity is "fun" for me, but not "cool" for others. Person whose consent I need, likely would be in the "not cool" for others group...
... I cannot be sure how the person has reacted in their email, despite the fact my previous interactions with them, have been reasonable...