Can someone help me understand my Autism assessment results?

So about a year ago, I went to an assessment center to get tested for Autism because I had been talking about it for a while with my parents and therapist. After a couple weeks they sent me a report with all the results, and I was not diagnosed with Autism. But the report is confusing and contradictory, and I'm sick of not understanding it so I figured I'd ask people on here to see if anyone has any advice or similar experiences.

My confusion comes from the fact that while I was not diagnosed with Autism, a large part of the report does not seem to support this conclusion. For context, here are some of the things said in the report:

"The pattern of answers Sadie gave on the PAI [Personality Assessment Inventory] is consistent with an ASD diagnosis based on current research."

[On the Social Responsiveness Scale, Second Edition (SRS-2):] "Scores in this range, however, indicate deficiencies in reciprocal social behavior that are clinically significant and tend to lead to severe and enduring interferences with everyday social interaction. In general, such scores are strongly associated with a clinical diagnosis of autism."

"Sadie completed the Adult Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ), which is a self-report measure of symptoms commonly associated with autism spectrum disorder. Sadie’s scores yielded a score of 41/50. Scores in this range (over 32) typically indicate significant autistic traits."

Those three are from the main body of the report, by the end in the Summary and Diagnostic Impressions sections they seem to have totally reversed their position:

"While Sadie may meet criteria for autism based on symptoms count, the pervasive and development nature of the disorder (i.e., impacting all aspects of life to a significant degree across the lifespan) does not appear to reach a clinical threshold. The range of what is considered typical functioning is quite broad, meaning that most individuals experience some type of distress or difficulty in their daily lives. Further, Sadie’s emotional problems seem to have impacted her functioning significantly and cannot be ruled out as the cause for difficulty."

"Another factor complicating Sadie’s presentation which can present as a neurodevelopmental disorder (e.g., autism, ADHD) is trauma. Sadie reported a history of trauma related to abuse...Trauma arrests development, impacts mood, can cause emotional lability or blunting, and cause executive dysfunction."

So what gives? I can't be Autistic because I have "emotional problems"? I've read this thing so many times and I just can't understand why that would cancel out everything else relating to an Autism diagnosis. If anyone can help me understand this a little better, I'd really appreciate it.

Parents
  • It looks like they are saying they aren't sure, not that you definitely aren't autistic. For that reason alone I think you may need a second opinion to be sure.

    The life span thing, well the trait should have been in evidence since early childhood, but the presentation can change through out life and we develop compensation strategies. Not sure where they are going with the clinically significant thing. There are plenty of autistic people who are managing; differently or perhaps not without some difficulty, out there, but they are no less autistic.

    It absolutely can't be that you are not autistic because of trauma. You may have had trauma because of some element of autism. However, some trauma symptoms might look the same as some autistic traits and they need to tease them apart, and it looks like they are saying they can't.

    One question I would be asking myself is how much very early developmental information did they have to work with? This could be your recollection, a relatives, documentary, school reports, child hood videos, diaries etc. The key will be there. If there was no or little early evidence of autism, the conclusion is likely to be trauma, if there was then autism likely had a role in the trauma you endured.

    It is quite important that they drill down a bit more, because either way it's going to be difficult to address the trauma without getting to the core of your autistic traits...and 41 on the AQ is HIGH

Reply
  • It looks like they are saying they aren't sure, not that you definitely aren't autistic. For that reason alone I think you may need a second opinion to be sure.

    The life span thing, well the trait should have been in evidence since early childhood, but the presentation can change through out life and we develop compensation strategies. Not sure where they are going with the clinically significant thing. There are plenty of autistic people who are managing; differently or perhaps not without some difficulty, out there, but they are no less autistic.

    It absolutely can't be that you are not autistic because of trauma. You may have had trauma because of some element of autism. However, some trauma symptoms might look the same as some autistic traits and they need to tease them apart, and it looks like they are saying they can't.

    One question I would be asking myself is how much very early developmental information did they have to work with? This could be your recollection, a relatives, documentary, school reports, child hood videos, diaries etc. The key will be there. If there was no or little early evidence of autism, the conclusion is likely to be trauma, if there was then autism likely had a role in the trauma you endured.

    It is quite important that they drill down a bit more, because either way it's going to be difficult to address the trauma without getting to the core of your autistic traits...and 41 on the AQ is HIGH

Children
No Data