AS vs. HFA?

Post Reply New Topic

Ha, yeah. I've found that many people don't like it when I do this and it annoys them, however, for some reason or another (this is in the past on this forum). I like accuracy and rules, and the latter makes it easy for me to understand.

Of note, and to add on the AS and HFA thingy, it's possible to have mixed Asperger's and Autism; this comes under PDD-NOS. For example, you're socially aloof as a child and adult, but you only have the narrow interest of AS [without the other repetitive behaviours]; there's about a billion manifestations of this.

I am all for the merging of AS and HFA, and when they do merge them, I will go and get reassessed.

That's the thing though the DSM V may not merge everything. There's several possiblities that are being discussed. One may merge all the spectrum into one diagnosis of "autism". Another camp wants Aspergers removed from the spectrum completely. So we don't know yet what will happen but yes many of us, if not all, may need to be reassessed or rediagnosed.

Another problem is the DSM IV as it stands now is not being properly utilized. I see so many people young and old alike that get an Aspergers diagnosis when they meet criteria not for AS but for PDD-NOS, HFA, Hyperlexia, Semantic Pragmantic Disorder, NVLD, Rhett's or even Heller's Syndrome. Few people, including most psychs know about the full spectrum. If they can't get the diagnosis right now I doubt the DSM V will make things any easier.

Rett's mistaken as Asperger's? Seriously? You'd think the dramatic regression in early childhood, the seizures, and oh yes, the genetic mutation responsible for most cases would make that at least a little less likely a misdiagnosis than Asperger's/Kanner's...

I don't see how you could possibly remove AS from the autism spectrum, considering that many adult Kanner's cases present exactly like Asperger's.

I do not really know of course.

But from what I read, not just in this tread but in general, it seems to me as if all differences (not just within Autism but also between Autism and NT) are only gradual and not fundamental.

Perhaps every individual human being (i) can be characterised by the following equation:

i = w(i) * Autism + (1-w(i)) * NT + e(i)

where w(i) is an individual weight on a continuous scale from 0 to 1
and e(i) is individual deviations from the average pattern given the weight

Then I would expand this theory by stating that psychologists have drawn some arbitrary borders in the above equation, e.g. w(i) > 0.7 implies LFA, w(i) between 0.3 and 0.7 implies ASD or HFA, w(i) < 0.3 implies NT.
(Actual numbers are of course merely meant as an example.)

As for myself, in this equation I think my weight would be somewhere between 0.25 and 0.4. If I were to be diagnosed, there is a chance I might be classified as non-Aspie after all. Which I would then sincerely regret because I'm sure that my Autism weight in the equation is substantially above 0 still.

This is all just a theory of course. Don't know what you think about it.

I agree with the idea of a continuum and arbitrary boundaries, yes.

If you place the boundary between diagnosable and not at the point at which the traits are causing impairment (this will create some problems because impairment depends on environment), then that's the safest place to put it IMO because when there's impairment then there's a need for treatment, accommodation, or therapy of some sort. Using that idea, though, you'd have to be aware of the large group of people who do not have significant impairment and still have some of the same neurology as those who do--and that this group will include people who used to be impaired, but have learned enough that they no longer are.