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

The premise of this thread is kind of irrelevant for 2 reasons:

1. DSM-5 doesn't mention 'functioning' just severity of each diagnostic criteria i.e. requires; support, substantial support, very substantial support plus whether there are any associated; intellectual impairment, language impairment; medical or genetic condition or environmental factor, other neurodevelopmental, mental, or behavioural disorder, catatonia

2. High/low-functioning as a label has long been deemed 'divisive' and inappropriate by the ASD community, particularly as autism is a non-linear, spectrum disorder i.e. you can be 'high' in some areas and 'low' in others with everyone having a different 'profile'

This...

Not this...

See Functioning labels and why you shouldn't be using them by Autistic Advocate

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...

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...

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...

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/