Lately, the online communities have been talking about the recently released proposed revisions for the the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, version 5 (DSM-V). The proposed revisions embody quite a few differences in the diagnostic criteria for disorders previously under the umbrella of Pervasive Development Disorder (PDD). Available online for comment, the two main concerns appear to be vague wording of the diagnostic criteria and whether or not Asperger Syndrome should remain as a separate diagnosis.

Diagnostic Criteria
Under the DSM-IV, each subcategory of the PDD spectrum was fairly specific in listing criteria for the diagnoses. However, despite that, many children who did not fit the subcategories of Autistic Disorder, Asperger's Disorder or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder were given the diagnosis of Pervasive Development Disorder - not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS). PDD-NOS has included many presentations of the disorder. Over time, the number of children receiving PDD-NOS has been increasing. It is not surprising that the DSM committee felt that something was amiss. "Not otherwise specified" is far from informative.

The proposed changes to the DSM-V include merging Autistic Disorder, Asperger Syndrome, Pervasive Development Disorder - not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS) and Childhood Disintegrative Disorder into the classification Autism Spectrum Disorder. Rett’s Disorder has been removed from the DSM and labeled a "medical disorder". While there are various opinions on the matter, many are extremely concerned over the vague diagnostic criteria in the proposed manual.

1. Clinically significant, persistent deficits in social communication and
interactions, as manifest by all of the following:

      a. Marked deficits in nonverbal and verbal communication used
         for social interaction:

      b. Lack of social reciprocity;

      c. Failure to develop and maintain peer relationships appropriate
         to developmental level.

Much of the concern is over criteria one (see above), as many of the deficits cannot be measured in a clinical setting. As most clinicians would be unable to observe children in their natural environments, much of the information used to determine diagnosis would consist of speculation and interpretation by unqualified persons such as teachers and others who work with the child. This makes the diagnosis subjective and dependent on the knowledge of individual observers.

Section 1.a assumes that the average pediatrician has adequate speech and language training in order to determine deficits in a verbal child. While the non verbal children may be easy to identify under criteria a, those without obvious speech deficits may fall through the cracks without proper evaluations by speech and language pathologists.

Other concerns relate to the age in which some of the criteria is appropriate. For instance, section 1.b requires a lack of social reciprocity. Reciprocal social behavior refers to the extent to which a child engages in emotionally appropriate turn-taking social interaction with others. It is normal for very young children to engage in parallel play and thus typical children do not always engage in reciprocal play. Section 1.c indicates that the child must show deficits in peer relationships - something that is not always obvious in early childhood.

The manifestation of these difficulties may not be cut and dry. Often, like-minded children flock together. With the rate of Autism diagnoses rising some Autistic children may have developed peer relationships with others on the spectrum. Additionally, renowned specialist, Tony Attwood has found that girls have naturally higher verbal and social skills than boys which can often lead to missing the diagnosis under the old criteria1. Under the proposed criteria, these children would simply not qualify for diagnosis at all.

Since all three criteria are required to receive a diagnosis, it is easy to speculate that many children will not be diagnosed until well past early intervention years when or if they would show obvious deficits.

2. Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as
manifested by at least TWO of the following:

      a. Stereotyped motor or verbal behaviors, or unusual sensory
          behaviors

      b. Excessive adherence to routines and ritualized patterns of behavior

      c. Restricted, fixated interests

The wording for criteria two (see above) is not only very vague, but insinuates that these behaviors are undesirable. This is directly in conflict with the current mentality of concentrating on strengths as well as weaknesses. The proposed changes return us to negative stereotypes that define autism as a series of defects. Compounded by vague wording, criteria 2 fails to define what defines "stereotype", "unusual", "excessive" and "fixated". This lack of clarification allows those using the DSM-V for diagnosis, to rely on their own interpretation and definitions. As with criteria one, the diagnosis becomes subjective with what the diagnostician perceives as being usual, excessive and essentially typical behavior. Instead of clarifying, this criteria not only confounds the diagnosis, but is also contrary to defining autism as a widely diverse spectrum that has particular deficits as well as unique abilities.

3. Symptoms must be present in early childhood (but may not become
fully manifest until social demands exceed limited capacities)

Criteria three (above) appears to confirm the fear that young spectrum children will go undiagnosed. Data has shown that early intervention is key to helping Autistic children with potential deficits. Additionally, failure to identify children at an early age could cause severe stress to children who need accommodations to function in mainstream society. It has been confirmed that the earlier accommodations and interventions are put in place, the better the outcome for the Autistic person. However, under the new DSM-V criteria, it is likely that children will go undiagnosed until they are school age and beyond. Children who previously may have been diagnosed Asperger's Disorder and PDD-NOS could easily slip through the diagnostic cracks.

Finally, a large concern is by some in the Asperger's adult population who were previously diagnosed under the DSM-IV. While many of these individuals continue to fit the Asperger's Disorder under DSM-IV, there is concern that as adults, they will be "undiagnosed" under the DSM-V since they now do not present with the new criteria requirements. This presents a very real question; how will the currently diagnosed population fair through this change?

Autism vs. Asperger's
For various reasons, some feel that Asperger's should remain separate. Some speak of pride of being "Aspies" (a term created by the adult population), finding a sense of superiority and self-esteem in the distinction. Along with this view, there are those that feel that Asperger's includes a difference in communication skills and ability to adapt than that of Autistic Disorder. The mindset is that these differences mean that those with Asperger's are not the same as others on the Autism spectrum. The hard working advocates who have toiled endlessly to have Asperger's recognized as a valid diagnosis, see this as a step backwards from what they have worked for, and perhaps, are feeling that they have struggled for nothing.

Inclusion Issues
Under the new DSM-V, there is also a concern that people currently diagnosed as Asperger's will be automatically slotted into specialized Autistic community, and special education programs where they will be segregated from their non-disabled peers. This is a tribute to the prevailing mindset that those with the Autistic Disorder diagnosis are somehow "more disabled" than those with Asperger's. Additionally, this mindset is testimony to the current problems inhibiting proper inclusive programs in our public schools and communities. It appears that society is still more inclined to let labels define the supports and accommodations rather than individual needs.

Currently, the only diagnostic difference between Autistic Disorder and Asperger's has been defined by verbal skills and more specifically, a child's ability to speak. Using this model a person diagnosed with Asperger's is no less Autistic than a person diagnosed with Autistic Disorder. However, under the Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act (IDEA) qualifying diagnostic criteria, this distinction has often excluded Asperger's as an Autistic Disorder. For some, this has prevented access to accommodations, support programs and services that they need to remain stable or reach their full level of independence, both in schools and in the community.

Currently, U.S. states have used Autism, Emotional Disturbance and Other Health Impairment as the qualifying diagnoses for those with Asperger's Syndrome, but not actually Asperger's. Additionally, IDEA has a behavioral qualification which states that a child who has "behavior that impedes his/her learning or the learning of others" also qualifies for IDEA protections. IDEA is supposed to be "needs" based and not strictly applicable to diagnostic labels. It speaks more about the state of accommodations and specially designed instruction than the actual definition of Autism.

One solution to the problem of accommodations is the changing IDEA and other educational criteria by removing static qualifying labels (such as Autism, Emotional Disturbance, etc). Because IDEA does not use the DSM, it is unclear how the proposed DSM-V changes will affect a students ability to receive special education services.

Severity Levels
One unknown is what the severity levels of Autism Spectrum Disorder will look like in the DSM-V. Previously it was thought that Asperger's Disorder was the "highest functioning" Autism, Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified was next and finally Autism being the "lowest functioning" diagnosis. However, over time, it has become more apparent that the lines between these diagnoses are not so clear. While those with Autism may have lower IQ scores, it is not obvious how accurate these scores are, as those with the current Autistic Disorder almost always have severe verbal communication impairment.

It is thought by some that breaking down the new Autism Spectrum Disorder by severity may be a step in the wrong direction. Until there are standardized tools to accurately measure a persons ability to "function", severity is subject to speculation and interpretation. However, as there are no proposals published currently, it is too early to say what these severity levels will look like or whether they will exist at all.

Looking toward the future
While there is much scrutiny over what the DSM-V should look like, it is questionable as to why the Autism Spectrum diagnosis is remaining in the DSM at all. While there are many theories about the origins, it has been established that Autism is not a temporary mental health issue, but a life long neurological and biological issue.

Autism has been defined as a spectrum disorder which indicates there are many varied presentations. One could speculate that Autism, itself, is not the disorder and that other commonly co-morbid medical diagnoses are responsible for any impairment.

Many Autistics also have speech and language disorders, sensory processing disorders, fine and gross motor disorders, immune system dis-regulation, and learning disorders. These disorders do not appear in the DSM, but appear in the ICD (International Classification of Diseases) manual which is medical, in nature.

Would it be more appropriate perhaps to place Autism Spectrum Disorder in the ICD manual with the commonly co-morbid diagnoses? This would ensure that every person diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder is given appropriate interventions and support customized to individual needs. Attempting to find a "one size fits all" diagnosis seems unrealistic when not every presentation is the same. Indeed, doing so would likely alleviate concerns for covering all the diagnostic criteria in the DSM-V. While many Autistics prefer not to be considered diseased, changing the diagnostic process to the ICD manual is preferable because of the many co-morbid issues.

As it stands now, will these proposed revisions to the mental health diagnostic criteria cause more Autistics to fall through the cracks, as opposed to being recognized, and given the appropriate supports as soon as possible. Does the vague criteria reinforce the standard, narrow diagnosis of Autism, instead of reaching out to acknowledge the wide spectrum of Autism?

_{1. The Complete Guide to Asperger's Syndrome, Attwood}