Published on 12, July, 2020
'High functioning' is a term commonly used to describe people diagnosed with autism without an intellectual disability.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.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.A new study has found labelling children with autism 'high functioning' can be misleading.
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.
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.A new study has found labelling children with autism 'high functioning' can be misleading.
www.brisbanetimes.com.au/.../new-research-shows-high-functioning-is-an-inaccurate-autism-label-20190619-p51z9t.html
The gap between expected adaptive functioning due to IQ and actual level of adaptive functioning can be quite large.
The terms high and low functioning are quite misleading. In no way do they describe abilities someone may have.
What they tend to do is disguise needs and abilities. Someone described as 'low functioning' may have any abilities they have ignored or not recognised. Someone described as 'high functioning' may have any needs unrecognised. And it does not accurately describe intelligence, as someone 'high functioning' may have an IQ (that mysterious quality defined by scores in an IQ test) well below the supposed norm of 100.
And I am in awe of some of the skills some so called 'low functioning' autistic people have.
Trainspotter said: And it does not accurately describe intelligence,
How would you accurately describe intelligence ?
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 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?