New research shows 'high functioning' is an inaccurate autism label

Researchers don't necessarily conceptualise and understand the conditions they study in the way those of us who have those conditions might want them to. They are prone to inaccurate language and even perpetuating stereotypes (of course any diagnostic criteria is basically a stereotype which is hopefully refined over time to be more accurate).

It's also not true that every researcher in psychology knows anything about autism beyond the layperson. People have very niche research areas.

It's important that the language used is clear to anyone who might use it e.g. educators, doctors, autistic people. I think the idea of "functioning" does need to be retired for something clearer.

Arran said:

For 6A02.0, 6A02.2, 6A02.4 intellectual functioning and adaptive behaviour are found to be at least within the average range - approximately greater than the 2.3rd percentile.

In no way is an IQ of 71 within normal range . Then there are those of us with diagnosed learning difficulty  , or if you're like me , in school at a time when being of average or above intelligence  meant your difficulties were ignored, its probable though undiagnosed .

Kitsune said:

NAS65874 said:

someone who presents very neurotypical in both social characteristics and social capability/engagement, is not particularily eccentric and essentially runs an everyday, autnomous self-sufficient successful life.

Do autistic people like this exist?

Yes ~ hence the ICD 11 categorization:

Arran said:

6A02.0 Autism spectrum disorder without disorder of intellectual development and with mild or no impairment of functional language

Such people tend more out of curiosity to get diagnosed during or after their children's diagnosis, or after they happen across or are introduced to autistic spectrum quotient tests and such like.

Oh yeah. Maybe i don't come across as NT either then.  I just meant that i don't come across as rainman.  Anyway we're alive and functioning in our own various ways.  Just as the Ant builds it's nest and the tree grows its vines. The Autistic still breathes.

I used to have an IQ of 132 but after an unfortunate co morbid brain injury it’s gone down to 118. I get out of the house a lot and socialise a lot (mainly with other autistic people) but I’m pretty sure that I don’t come across as NT and probably seem a bit odd to NTs due to my complete inability to ‘read’ people or to pick up on social cues hidden in tone of voice; facial expression; body language etc etc. So am I high or low functioning? Even more complex :-)

I have an IQ of 133 but i barely leave the house. Were i to leave the house and talk to people they would assume i was an NT like them.  So am i high or low functioning?  Complex.

NAS65874 said:

someone who presents very neurotypical in both social characteristics and social capability/engagement, is not particularily eccentric and essentially runs an everyday, autnomous self-sufficient successful life.

Do autistic people like this exist?

Interesting, I always associated high-functiong with just that, high-functioning. I didnt relate it to IQ at all. By that I mean, someone who presents very neurotypical in both social characteristics and social capability/engagement, is not particularily eccentric and essentially runs an everyday, autnomous self-sufficient successful life.

Before Asperger syndrome was recognised it was common for children who met or exceeded the academic ability in English and maths expected for their year group to be misdiagnosed with having behavioural problems or emotional and behavioural difficulties.

The National Curriculum was already fully implemented when Asperger syndrome became recognised but there was probably greater disparity when it came to levels of academic ability between different LEAs or even different schools in the years before the National Curriculum.

I'm vaguely aware that general knowledge tests were also used to supplement English and maths tests but I don't have any details of whether there was cultural or other biases in them. 

@Arran That's pretty much what I thought, originally IQ measurement was pegged to development stages (albeit usually in culturally discriminatory ways). I was ahead developmentally in terms of learning so was referred for behavioral problems which turned out to be autism. So you can be autistic and 'behind' developmental stage or ahead. They used to differentiate aspergers and high functioning autism by language delay or not. As an adult I'm not sure what it means though, I assume it's one of the reasons they insist on diagnosing adults historically as though they are children. I'm inclined to agree that IQ/cognitive ability don't have much  to say about how "functional" one is in everyday life as an autistic person or about 'how autistic' one is.

Original Prankster said:

You seem to be saying if they have high IQ then they'd be classed as high-functioning by psychologists?

Yes, that's what I mean. When scientists/psychologists are talking about "functioning" they are mainly just referring to "cognitive functioning", which is largely IQ and executive function.

It's exactly what firemonkey posted: 

'High functioning' is a term commonly used to describe people diagnosed with autism without an intellectual disability. 

Post-doctoral researcher Dr Gail Alvares said while 'high functioning' is used to describe people diagnosed with autism who have IQs in the normal range, it does not indicate their functional status.

When communicating among psychologists, IQ is largely what they mean when they say the word functioning. Psychologists are not referring to functional status.

Original Prankster said:

If function is taken to mean "works or operates in a proper or particular way" then a low IQ autistic with asperger-type presentation could probably be said to be 'functional', albeit not necessarily terribly well...

Yes, this is the layman's definition of the term "functioning", so that's why "high/low functioning" is often misunderstood. 

Here are some other examples of different scientific and layman words. 
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/

So, ICD has the same specifications as what scientists mean by "functioning", but has translated it into layman's terms.

Interesting. What about the autistic geniuses out there?

Agreed.

Intelligence is defined as: "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills"

So it is a 'partner' word (there's probably a correct name for it):

- Intellectual intelligence

- Emotional intelligence

- Physical intelligence (e.g. sportsperson)

I feel 'IQ' was a thing that was invented as  measure and now carries more weight than it really should, possibly 'cos I think I'd do badly in an IQ test - which mat be due to my aspie brain not working in a way compatible with a test invented by NTs!

I'm seeing my psychologist tomorrow - I'll ask her about what 'psychlogists' mean by that term...

Personally I've always seen it used contextually in relation to a broader brush i.e. 'high functioning' = low support needs (most of the time)

You could have an autistic person with a genius IQ but who was non-verbal, suffered massively from sensory overload and exhibited extreme stimming behaviours who I would say would be considered 'low functioning, very high support needs'...

You seem to be saying if they have high IQ then they'd be classed as high-functioning by psychologists?

If function is taken to mean "works or operates in a proper or particular way" then a low IQ autistic with asperger-type presentation could probably be said to be 'functional', albeit not necessarily terribly well...

In ICD-11 we have the following categories of ASD:

6A02.0 Autism spectrum disorder without disorder of intellectual development and with mild or no impairment of functional language

6A02.1 Autism spectrum disorder with disorder of intellectual development and with mild or no impairment of functional language

6A02.2 Autism spectrum disorder without disorder of intellectual development and with impaired functional language

6A02.3 Autism spectrum disorder with disorder of intellectual development and with impaired functional language

6A02.4 Autism spectrum disorder without disorder of intellectual development and with absence of functional language

6A02.5 Autism spectrum disorder with disorder of intellectual development and with absence of functional language

6A02.Y Other specified autism spectrum disorder

6A02.Z Autism spectrum disorder, unspecified

For 6A02.0, 6A02.2, 6A02.4 intellectual functioning and adaptive behaviour are found to be at least within the average range - approximately greater than the 2.3rd percentile.

ASD is a wide-range of differences, including social, emotional, occupational, societal, language, sensory differences. And also possible IQ differences. 

You ARE allowed to talk about a specific one when you want to. For example, you can start a conversation about autism focusing mainly on sensory issues. There are many people who post treads only about a single topic among the many of the spectrum. But why are people not allowed to talk about IQ as a single subject? 

It's really what psychologists mean when they say high/low functioning. They are only talking about IQ during that time. It's not that they are not ignoring the other issues. So, I think the only reason that the ASD community thinks high/low functioning is inappropriate is because they do not know that psychologists are talking only about IQ when talking about functioning. It's a difference between scientific use and laypeople use. High/low functioning is not a diagnostic label itself, and IQ is not needed in the diagnosis. The diagnosis criteria requires the diagnostician to consider communication, sensory, behavioural, social, emotional functioning, and the IQ is just an extra specification that is added on because it's not part of the criteria.

high-functioning + ASD = high-cognitive-functioning (i.e., normal IQ) + ASD
low-functioning + ASD = low-cognitive-functioning (i.e., low IQ) + ASD
The scientific jargon "functioning" naturally means IQ to psychologists/neuroscientists, and it has nothing to do with autism at all. Many people study cognitive functioning in the neurotypical population. There are loads of research done on individual differences in cognitive functioning in neurotypicals. 

So it seems like this argument is really just pointing out the obvious that low/high functioning is not a functional assessment and referring to IQ only, and that is what psychologists mean when they say that. But it's a problem because (1) laypeople think functioning means "general functioning", or (2) laypeople think psychologists are missing out on other areas when they are not...

'High functioning' is a term commonly used to describe people diagnosed with autism without an intellectual disability.

Every psychologist and neuroscientist knows this

Post-doctoral researcher Dr Gail Alvares said while 'high functioning' is used to describe people diagnosed with autism who have IQs in the normal range, it does not indicate their functional status.

Every psychologist and neoruscientist knows this.

However, despite the term's prevalence in medical journals and everyday use, new research shows the term can be misleading and advocates have called for its use to be dropped.

It is misleading because laypeople do not know that psychologists and scientists are referring to IQ only

A new study has found labelling children with autism 'high functioning' can be misleading.

It is misleading because laypeople do not know that psychologists and scientists are referring to IQ only

I doubt that many kids have actually had an IQ test.

In reality the level of functioning relates to childhood development milestones and comparisons with the National Curriculum for English and maths.

High functioning basically means no speech or language delays and comparable academic ability in English and maths to what is expected from an individual in their year group. Historically this would have meant that a person with ASD who met this criteria would be considered to have a behavioural problem because SEN was defined as being behind in English and maths or having speech and language impairments.

I suppose.intelligence.means.different thingsi different people and any form of measurement is not going to be accurate.

Whether my definition.would.be an accurate.one I don't.know, but it would be something like.the.ability to solve.a.problem in a.practical and workable way even with no prior knowledge,.while.also.having the ability to draw.on experiences from the past.  Wisdom is also therefore a part.of intelligence in my definition.

I believe.a.craftsman, sculptor, artist, .carpenter.engineer, poet,or.mechanic all.have intelligence.in different.areas, they all have problems to solve in their work and may be presented with new tasks to which they have to work out an innovative solution.  But orthodox IQ tests often do not recognise this.  

Look at the way crows, squirrels, parrots and monkeys can often out perform five year old.children in certain forms of problem solving and you will see.what I mean.  And the fact that dogs.and cats can understand our language much better than we can theirs. Each animal species.is uniquely adapted in ways to help their species survive and even insects can exhibit behaviour in problem.solving.- for.example ants.using.leaves.to.cross.water.

.We.can dismiss.some.of these as.instinct,.but what is intelligence if it is not something.which.is instinctive?