• Replies 13 replies
  • Subscribers 84 subscribers
  • Views 4551 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

DSM-V - Diagnosed But Would Now Not Be

NAS61891

I'm assuming with the DSM-V criteria, there are people out there who have been diagnosed but would now not be?

The reason I say this is that one of the criteria is that it must limit you on a daily basis; that means that all those on Youtube and on the forums who say they had no idea they were autistic would surely now not be diagnosed?

Where I'm going with this is I suspect I'm autistic but that the extent won't be enough for a diagnosis. So, is it therefore possible nowadays to be autistic but receive a formal diagnosis that you're not?

I'd have thought that you either are, or are not autistic, but of course it's a spectrum and it seems, (possibly because of increased awareness and pressure on the NHS) that the medical experts you see will know you are autistic but send you home with a diagnosis that you're not if it's mild.

Seems a shame but that's how it's shaping up to me.

Parents

  • For me it has seemed to go in the opposite direction.  I don't think I would have been diagnosed in previous decades but now, in my 6th decade of life, I have been.  And under the DSM 5 criteria.

    I'm also not sure what my sons chances of being diagnosed earlier on might have been.  Diagnosis rates seemed to take off in the 1990s which coincided with their early childhoods but I'm not sure exactly when in the 90s the change took place or whether it caries by region, locality, even by school.  

    Plus, of course, the DSM is revised every few years and so, whereas once I might have been diagnosed with Asperger's, I've now attracted the label of ASD, although I'm clearly the same person with the same strengths and limitations in life.

    It's confusing, but it's a confusion inherent in the diagnostic system so I tend to put it back onto services and ask them.  Apparently (and this relates to last October for me and earlier this year for one of my sons), it's the DSM criteria that are being used.  Two different teams were quite clear about that.

    They also seem to pare it down to just 3 criteria , being

    - qualitative difficulties in social communication and reciprocal social interactions

    - qualitative difficulties in social imagination and restricted, repetitive and stereotyped behaviours and interests

    - sensory difficulties which are being increasingly recognised as central to autism

    No mention was made of these imposing daily limitations, but given the very general and nearly all encompassing nature of these categories, it seems to me that this is implied.  After all, to most people I think that communication and interaction would be considered to be daily matters.  

    So I would say it's definitely worth proceeding.  I'm coming across lots of people who previously wouldn't have been diagnosed but now are.  I'm not, of course, saying it doesn't sometimes go in the other direction, but my experience has been that it's increasingly likely to be diagnosed.

Reply

  • For me it has seemed to go in the opposite direction.  I don't think I would have been diagnosed in previous decades but now, in my 6th decade of life, I have been.  And under the DSM 5 criteria.

    I'm also not sure what my sons chances of being diagnosed earlier on might have been.  Diagnosis rates seemed to take off in the 1990s which coincided with their early childhoods but I'm not sure exactly when in the 90s the change took place or whether it caries by region, locality, even by school.  

    Plus, of course, the DSM is revised every few years and so, whereas once I might have been diagnosed with Asperger's, I've now attracted the label of ASD, although I'm clearly the same person with the same strengths and limitations in life.

    It's confusing, but it's a confusion inherent in the diagnostic system so I tend to put it back onto services and ask them.  Apparently (and this relates to last October for me and earlier this year for one of my sons), it's the DSM criteria that are being used.  Two different teams were quite clear about that.

    They also seem to pare it down to just 3 criteria , being

    - qualitative difficulties in social communication and reciprocal social interactions

    - qualitative difficulties in social imagination and restricted, repetitive and stereotyped behaviours and interests

    - sensory difficulties which are being increasingly recognised as central to autism

    No mention was made of these imposing daily limitations, but given the very general and nearly all encompassing nature of these categories, it seems to me that this is implied.  After all, to most people I think that communication and interaction would be considered to be daily matters.  

    So I would say it's definitely worth proceeding.  I'm coming across lots of people who previously wouldn't have been diagnosed but now are.  I'm not, of course, saying it doesn't sometimes go in the other direction, but my experience has been that it's increasingly likely to be diagnosed.

Children
No Data