I was wondering when a person on the spectrum their developmental age is described as lower than their chronological age, is this just because of them being on the spectrum or is this usually because of also having a learning or intellectual disability?
I tend to view the term "developmental age" with suspicion these days as, from birth onwards, it's based on averages which probably aren't meaningful for the individual but more often an implied criticism or standard against which people, and especially neurodivergent people, are unfavourably measured - hardly encouraging or motivating. Plus, of course, it'd be hard to find a perfectly average person who matched the standard measurements across the board. We're human, and we all have our strengths and challenges, after all. And most of us will be outliers in one way or another.
I wish I'd been more suspicious earlier on too, as such standards were imposed by health visitors from birth onwards, then reinforced by educators and parenting books. Of course, some things can be worrying and do need following up - trust your instincts on this - but if I had my chance at parenting again, I would focus on the child as an individual, be aware of them very probably having a spikey profile in terms of their abilities and not worry so much about milestones such as when they're toilet trained (it seemed to take a VERY long time!) or sleep through the night (likewise and in fact it never happened for one of my now adult children) or learn to read (although this happened extremely early in our family).
Yes, LD can be a factor, but so can personality and the environment more generally. If the child is too anxious to "perform" in a particular environment, or is situationally mute, for example, then the fault lies in the external environment and not the child. I can clearly remember being referred to as "gormless" in front of a large group of my peers, when actually I was feeling just too nervous to speak and interact with other group members. Any observer might have assumed that I was developmentally delayed but if I'd been in a more accepting environment I probably would have been able to speak. And they'd probably have been quite perplexed when I performed really well on written tests (this was between me and a bit of paper so I didn't feel overwhelmed by exposure anxiety). OTOH one of my children had real problems with handwriting (dysgraphia, probably) so often was unable to convey the intelligence that shone through in other ways. Again, very individual.
So I'd say, drill down, avoid making assumptions about intelligence or competence based on rigid benchmarks and timelines, and appreciate and nurture the person as they are.
I tend to view the term "developmental age" with suspicion these days as, from birth onwards, it's based on averages which probably aren't meaningful for the individual but more often an implied criticism or standard against which people, and especially neurodivergent people, are unfavourably measured - hardly encouraging or motivating. Plus, of course, it'd be hard to find a perfectly average person who matched the standard measurements across the board. We're human, and we all have our strengths and challenges, after all. And most of us will be outliers in one way or another.
I wish I'd been more suspicious earlier on too, as such standards were imposed by health visitors from birth onwards, then reinforced by educators and parenting books. Of course, some things can be worrying and do need following up - trust your instincts on this - but if I had my chance at parenting again, I would focus on the child as an individual, be aware of them very probably having a spikey profile in terms of their abilities and not worry so much about milestones such as when they're toilet trained (it seemed to take a VERY long time!) or sleep through the night (likewise and in fact it never happened for one of my now adult children) or learn to read (although this happened extremely early in our family).
Yes, LD can be a factor, but so can personality and the environment more generally. If the child is too anxious to "perform" in a particular environment, or is situationally mute, for example, then the fault lies in the external environment and not the child. I can clearly remember being referred to as "gormless" in front of a large group of my peers, when actually I was feeling just too nervous to speak and interact with other group members. Any observer might have assumed that I was developmentally delayed but if I'd been in a more accepting environment I probably would have been able to speak. And they'd probably have been quite perplexed when I performed really well on written tests (this was between me and a bit of paper so I didn't feel overwhelmed by exposure anxiety). OTOH one of my children had real problems with handwriting (dysgraphia, probably) so often was unable to convey the intelligence that shone through in other ways. Again, very individual.
So I'd say, drill down, avoid making assumptions about intelligence or competence based on rigid benchmarks and timelines, and appreciate and nurture the person as they are.
