ASD more common in rich peole?

Post Reply New Topic

I question the method used to determine the study sample. Although on the surface it would seem to solve the problem of ascertainment bias, there are so many holes in this selection process that I would have to question whether the people running the study could be certain that any of the children represented in their sample actually had an ASD. There are at least two sources of reporting bias that jumped out at me just from their description of the study sample sources.

First, the observed behaviors would have to have been reported through an educational facility. How are the behaviors reported? Surely not every interaction between children in the states listed and their teachers, mentors or school administrators are recorded, therefore someone -- a person -- has to make the decision as to which behaviors should be reported and which should not. Are they more likely to report behavior they see as being unusual or behavior that is deemed perfectly normal, if not ideal? How many interactions were ignored in this process by educators or others who simply decided that certain behavioral issues were normal for kids from a particular socio-economic or cultural background? How many were missed because their autistic behaviors weren't disruptive?

Second, how many individuals with low or even moderate incomes are going to discuss their children's behavioral issues with their medical provider? If one of the sources is information provided by medical practitioners, then there is an automatic bias toward families that actually have good medical insurance, since lower income families aren't going to spend precious medical time on what they likely see as a discipline problem, not a medical problem, especially if the insurance they do have doesn't provide adequately for behavioral counseling. Parents are much more likely to either attempt to address the issues on their own long before seeking outside help or to simply shrug off less severe manifestations as "that's just how s/he is."

Finally, the clinicians were diagnosing children they had never met based upon third or even fourth party descriptions of a child's overall behavior. Do I need to explain why this is questionable? (I won't go into whether or not it is ethical to then presumably not notify the child's parents of a possibility that their child may have a condition that will affect the rest of their lives.) The fact that they later confirmed that about 66% of those had actually received a diagnosis of ASD is immaterial. Within that sample, they could have done as well -- or possibly better -- by rolling dice.

Frankly, the study is flawed because their sample selection is flawed and very likely just as biased as SES studies based upon formally diagnosed patients.

Their choices of statistical tests seem a bit odd to me, too, but it could just be the fact that it's almost midnight as I'm writing this. If their data are normal, as they would need to be for the reported t-tests, why use a Poisson? I thought that was used for non-normal data distributions? (I could be completely wrong, here. I suffered mightily through stats.)

It's more likely that people with more money can spare the expense necessary to obtain a legal diagnosis. I think the study is very flawed for that reason.

Wow, tell that to all my poor and working-class relatives who are autistic (huge family history, both sides). Of course none of us were diagnosed as autistic until parts of the family made it into the middle class.

im rich then

I think that study is flawed because wealthier families are more able to afford an official diagnosis.

Makes sense, the part of my family with Autism is descendant from Norfolk Landowners

This study doesn't include older Aspies who have diagnosed late, have been highly educated, and yet are going from job to job due to the intolerance of certain NTs. My boyfriend has a PhD, and I am also college educated, yet we both cannot earn incomes proportionate to our knowledge base. And, as we age, the outcome only looks worse. In sum, we are both capable of earning high incomes. We are just more likely to run into problems keeping jobs.

I have to diplomatically disagree in terms of ASD being soley in the realm of those of high finance on the following grounds..1. ASD's are not confined nor limited to any particular group of people regardless or race,nationality,gender etc.
2.If all ASD' were merely confined to the rich then, that would make my great-grandfather,grandmother, and aunt all to be phony as being part of the spectrum due to the notion they came from humble backgrounds..
3.I myself grew up in humble background for, I was not of a wealthy family so, I feel that many ASD's can sometimes be overooked..


Sincerely,
ProfessorX Yes, I realise this is a poor attempt and trying to explain things but, it's the best I could do..

Another point:

Perhaps a mild autistic kid (specially of the "passive" variant) could be considered "problematic" in a Beverly Hills (or a Silicon Valley) school but a model student in a South Central LA school ("Yes, he is a bit different from the others, but at least he is not joining a gang")

But who is saying solely? The study only needs to show a statistically significant higher rate of ASD among high income families, doesn't it? Nothing about it being solely found in higher income families.[/quote]


I apologize as, I over-reacted in what I had said..