4 ms·
Though the data we have is under constant scrutiny for its accuracy, methodology, and usefulness, the Centers for Disease Control reports that the curre
by cbr 12y ago
Though the data we have is under constant scrutiny for
its accuracy, methodology, and usefulness, the Centers
for Disease Control reports that the current rate of
autism diagnosis in the United States is 1 in 68. This
is a continuation of a trend identified by the
Environmental Protection Agency that started between
1988 and 1992, when the worldwide diagnosis of autism
spiked from 6 in 10,000 kids to 24 in 10,000.
The main problem with this data is that the definition of autism has expanded over time. The category of "aspergers", a relatively limited form, was eliminated and folded into "autism", making historical numbers hard to work with.
This article is mostly talking about the most low-functioning forms of autism, for which the numbers are far far lower than 1 in 68.
- mistermcgruff 12y agoYeah. Autism is diagnosed by symptoms and the symptoms have changed over time. It used to be that an individual had to actively avoid social contact. Now they just need to be socially impaired even if they seek contact. As the symptoms have changed and as awareness has increased in the medical community, so have diagnoses increased.
- hoopism 12y agoI agree that it's not the insane uptick that the raw statistics would seem to indicate. But disputing that fact doesn't negate the fact that 1 in 68 kids has some form of disability (not saying you did... but I have seen that from some people as reason to dismiss the issue). I actually don't care one bit about the diagnosis itself. It's not as if having the diagnosis means you can take a pill to get rid of it. The only benefit we got from a diagnosis came from insurance paying for certain claims they previously would not have.
- judk 12y agoAnd among those 1 in 68 are people whose brilliance in extricably tied to that disability -- including most of the greatest scientists of past and present.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago>The main problem with this data is that the definition of autism has expanded over time. How do we know this is the case and not that it was under-diagnosed in the past? I also see this logic with ADHD. Yet in the past, a lot of these children would be shoved off to group homes or labeled 'slow' and such. At least with diagnosis they have a chance for recovery. I don't think past diagnosis stats are unquestionable. We actually don't know what the real rate should be. At least not yet.
- cbr 12y agoSome cases are ambiguous, as fuzzy definitions change over time. In this case, however, a name that once applied only to relatively severe cases has been intentionally expanded: The term "Asperger's disorder" will not appear in the DSM-5, the latest revision of the manual, and instead its symptoms will come under the newly added "autism spectrum disorder", which is already used widely. That umbrella diagnosis will include children with severe autism, who often do not talk or interact, as well as those with milder forms. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/dec/02/aspergers-syndrome-dropped-psychiatric-dsm http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/dec/02/aspergers-syn...
- clay_to_n 12y agoIt's certainly both. The definition has literally expanded (now including Asperger's), but with more awareness it's more likely people who are borderline autistic will be able to get diagnosed. This all makes it very hard to answer the question "are more people today autistic than 50 years ago?"