4.5 Article

Toward Specifying Pervasive Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified

期刊

AUTISM RESEARCH
卷 4, 期 2, 页码 121-131

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/aur.178

关键词

pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS); Autistic disorder; Asperger's disorder; autism spectrum disorder; diagnostic and statistical manual (DSM)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS) is the most common and least satisfactory of the PDD diagnoses. It is not formally operationalized, which limits its reliability and has hampered attempts to assess its validity. We aimed, first, to improve the reliability and replicability of PDD-NOS by operationalizing its DSM-IV-TR description and, second, to test its validity through comparison with autistic disorder (AD) and Asperger's disorder (AsD). In a sample of 256 young people (mean age = 9.1 years) we used Developmental, Diagnostic and Dimensional (3Di) algorithmic analysis to classify DSM-IV-TR AD (n = 97), AsD (n = 93) and PDD-NOS (n = 66). Groups were compared on independent measures of core PDD symptomatology, associated autistic features, and intelligence. Contrary to the assumption that PDD-NOS is heterogeneous, almost all (97%) of those with PDD-NOS had one distinct symptom pattern, namely impairments in social reciprocity and communication, without significant repetitive and stereotyped behaviors (RSB). Compared to AD and AsD, they had comparably severe but more circumscribed social communication difficulties, with fewer non-social features of autism, such as sensory, feeding and visuo-spatial problems. These individuals appear to have a distinct variant of autism that does not merely sit at the less severe end of the same continuum of symptoms. The current draft guidelines for DSM-V, which mandate the presence of RSBs for any PDD diagnosis, would exclude such people from the autistic spectrum. Autism Res 2011, 4: 121-131. (C) 2011 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据