MrXxx wrote:
Basically I look at it this way, and everyone, of course, is free to look at it differently:
There is a core body of work and documentation for which consensus exists. There is a HUGE body of work outside that core body of work, for which consensus only exists among smaller groups of professionals. A lot of the latter is made up of highly educated opinions, but opinions nonetheless. I can't make a lot of sense of the world or anything in it without some kind of rules. I look toward that body of work for which the most consensus exists. That is the DSM. I've not found any evidence that the DSM ever mentioned anything specifically about IQ. Even if it did at one time, it doesn't anymore, and that is THE book of consensus.
I'm certain that some professionals feeling the need to quantify things is behind IQ being used, and the clause you quoted is probably what they are trying to quantify. The problem is, as the article makes clear, the quantification is too subjective. I think it's a big mistake to consider IQ's at all. I think there are very good reasons for IQ's not being in the DSM in relation to Autism.
Yeah, I was just noting that there exist professionals who use IQ for that section V criterion, so if that comes up then maybe that's why (maybe that is what they are thinking). I agree that using IQ in assessments doesn't seem like a good idea, but I have different reasons. The thing is, I suspect those professionals who do it that way would argue that they are trying to making their assessments less subjective.
But since the DSM doesn't prescribe exactly how to determine what "significant" means, I'm not sure that you can say that professionals aren't following the DSM criteria. The DSM doesn't say, "use the ADOS, use GAF, interview at least on relative, don't use IQ for section V, ..." It's silent when it comes to concretely implementing a protocol for assessments.
08 Nov 2011, 7:07 pm
