Profound Concerns about “Profound Autism”: Dangers of Severity Scales and Functioning Labels for Support Needs

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Recently the Lancet published a Commission on the future of care and clinical research of autism, which included a side panel arguing for the adoption of “profound autism”, a term in- tended to describe autistic people who require constant supervision or care, thought to usually have significant intellectual disability, limited or no language, and an inability to advocate for themselves. This state-of-the-art review deconstructs problems with autism sublabels such as “profound autism” and low- and high-functioning labels. It then examines the communicative and cognitive capacities of minimally speaking autistic people, finding that such individuals can communicate (especially with responsive partners) and need nonverbal testing that allows them to demonstrate their potential strengths. It concludes with the ability of minimally speaking autistic people to self-advocate, and the influences of other people to both support and frustrate their communication.

Related collections

Most cited references 204

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Book: not found

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

American Psychiatric Association (2013)

0 comments Cited 8327 times – based on 0 reviews

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.

Maria J Grant, Andrew Booth (2009)

The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains. Following scoping searches, an examination was made of the vocabulary associated with the literature of review and synthesis (literary warrant). A simple analytical framework -- Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) -- was used to examine the main review types. Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were analysed against the SALSA framework, illustrating the inputs and processes of each review type. A description of the key characteristics is given, together with perceived strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of review types are currently utilized within the health information domain. Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive. Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain.