schizophrenia;the diagnostic criteria have shifted over time such that they encompass an expanding number of people.
When work began on the most recent edition of the
DSM,
there was talk of developing diagnoses based on the underlying neuroscience rather than symptoms. But the new
DSM
offered no drastic rethinking. The drafters slotted some diagnoses into different chapters, combined some separate diagnoses into single conditions, added new diagnoses, eliminated others, and refined diagnostic criteria. But fundamentally, the
DSM-5
maintained its symptoms-based approach to diagnosis rather than focusing on the underlying biochemical mechanisms.
The entry for âAutism Spectrum Disorderâ is a combination of what had been four distinct diagnoses (autistic disorder, Aspergerâs disorder, childhood disintegrative disorder, and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified) in the previous version. According to a fact sheet published by the American Psychiatric Association (the organization that publishes the
DSM
),this change was made in part because researchers didnât think that these diagnoses were applied consistently across clinics and in part because it was thought that a single diagnosis better reflected the idea that autism symptoms vary in severity. But neither of these reasons has much to do with whether these symptoms actually stem from one distinct underlying abnormality or four.
This emphasis on behavior leaves scientists in a quandary. As the prominent autism researcher Uta Frith once observed, âBehaviour, however reliably it is measured, is not revealing about its cause. There is a mapping problem. Many different causes can underlie the samebehaviour. On the other hand, behaviour that looks different in different individuals may actually be due to one and the same cause.â
Beyond the challenge of pinning down the definitions of prodigy and autism, Joanne faced another hurdle: her research pockets were empty, so she couldnât travel to the children and their families. She had tried to get NIH funding, but her application had been rejected.
She still wanted to do
something,
though, to at least find out whether her theory had merit. She didnât need ironclad proof. She just needed something quick and dirty that could be done on the cheap to explore whether there was anything to the idea that autism and prodigy were connected.
The answer came from abroad. The Autism Research Centre, an organization nestled within the University of Cambridgeâs psychiatry department, operates as a hub for scientists studying autism. At its core was Simon Baron-Cohen, one of the most famous and prolific autism researchers in the world.In 2001, he and his colleagues had published the Autism-Spectrum Quotient, or AQ, a test that measured a handful of traits associated with autism.
It was a snappy little test. With just fifty questions, it was quick and to the point, and it was designed to be self-administered. Most important, it was free.
Joanne thought she could use it as a canary in the mine for her theory.Autistsâ family members often demonstrate autistic traits, just not at a level that would merit an actual autism diagnosis. Joanne reasoned that if there was a connection between prodigy and autism, maybe the AQ would show that the prodigiesâ relatives, too, had some autistic traits, just like the autistsâ relatives. She decided that if they did, that would be her sign; she would launch a full investigation into the connection between prodigy and autism.
An autism researcher Joanne had known since high school agreed to make the AQ available to her patients and their families. For acontrol group, a local school distributed the AQ to families whose children had no documented disabilities. Joanne mailed the AQ to the families of some of the prodigiesâthose children who showed the accelerated development she was looking forâwith whom she had been in contact
When work began on the most recent edition of the
DSM,
there was talk of developing diagnoses based on the underlying neuroscience rather than symptoms. But the new
DSM
offered no drastic rethinking. The drafters slotted some diagnoses into different chapters, combined some separate diagnoses into single conditions, added new diagnoses, eliminated others, and refined diagnostic criteria. But fundamentally, the
DSM-5
maintained its symptoms-based approach to diagnosis rather than focusing on the underlying biochemical mechanisms.
The entry for âAutism Spectrum Disorderâ is a combination of what had been four distinct diagnoses (autistic disorder, Aspergerâs disorder, childhood disintegrative disorder, and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified) in the previous version. According to a fact sheet published by the American Psychiatric Association (the organization that publishes the
DSM
),this change was made in part because researchers didnât think that these diagnoses were applied consistently across clinics and in part because it was thought that a single diagnosis better reflected the idea that autism symptoms vary in severity. But neither of these reasons has much to do with whether these symptoms actually stem from one distinct underlying abnormality or four.
This emphasis on behavior leaves scientists in a quandary. As the prominent autism researcher Uta Frith once observed, âBehaviour, however reliably it is measured, is not revealing about its cause. There is a mapping problem. Many different causes can underlie the samebehaviour. On the other hand, behaviour that looks different in different individuals may actually be due to one and the same cause.â
Beyond the challenge of pinning down the definitions of prodigy and autism, Joanne faced another hurdle: her research pockets were empty, so she couldnât travel to the children and their families. She had tried to get NIH funding, but her application had been rejected.
She still wanted to do
something,
though, to at least find out whether her theory had merit. She didnât need ironclad proof. She just needed something quick and dirty that could be done on the cheap to explore whether there was anything to the idea that autism and prodigy were connected.
The answer came from abroad. The Autism Research Centre, an organization nestled within the University of Cambridgeâs psychiatry department, operates as a hub for scientists studying autism. At its core was Simon Baron-Cohen, one of the most famous and prolific autism researchers in the world.In 2001, he and his colleagues had published the Autism-Spectrum Quotient, or AQ, a test that measured a handful of traits associated with autism.
It was a snappy little test. With just fifty questions, it was quick and to the point, and it was designed to be self-administered. Most important, it was free.
Joanne thought she could use it as a canary in the mine for her theory.Autistsâ family members often demonstrate autistic traits, just not at a level that would merit an actual autism diagnosis. Joanne reasoned that if there was a connection between prodigy and autism, maybe the AQ would show that the prodigiesâ relatives, too, had some autistic traits, just like the autistsâ relatives. She decided that if they did, that would be her sign; she would launch a full investigation into the connection between prodigy and autism.
An autism researcher Joanne had known since high school agreed to make the AQ available to her patients and their families. For acontrol group, a local school distributed the AQ to families whose children had no documented disabilities. Joanne mailed the AQ to the families of some of the prodigiesâthose children who showed the accelerated development she was looking forâwith whom she had been in contact
Similar Books
