The April issue of the journal Pediatrics contains a study by Paul Shattuck at the University of Wisconsin, entitled, The Contribution of Diagnostic Substitution to the Growing Administrative Prevalence of Autism in US Special Education. This study would appear to contradict the view that there is an epidemic of autism.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cg...117/4/1028
Thanks for posting that.
Quote from the link -
RESULTS. The average administrative prevalence of autism among children increased from 0.6 to 3.1 per 1000 from 1994 to 2003. By 2003, only 17 states had a special education prevalence of autism that was within the range of recent epidemiological estimates. During the same period, the prevalence of mental retardation and learning disabilities declined by 2.8 and 8.3 per 1000, respectively. Higher autism prevalence was significantly associated with corresponding declines in the prevalence of mental retardation and learning disabilities. The declining prevalence of mental retardation and learning disabilities from 1994 to 2003 represented a significant downward deflection in their preexisting trajectories of prevalence from 1984 to 1993. California was one of a handful of states that did not clearly follow this pattern.
CONCLUSIONS. Prevalence findings from special education data do not support the claim of an autism epidemic because the administrative prevalence figures for most states are well below epidemiological estimates. The growing administrative prevalence of autism from 1994 to 2003 was associated with corresponding declines in the usage of other diagnostic categories.
3.1 per 1000 children is much lower than the 1 in 166 that is so often mentioned.
It clearly shows that there has been a decline is diagnoses of mental retardating and learning disability, and that has been replaced by diagnoses of autism.
So it's really a diagnosis epidemic, not an autism epidemic.
In which case the cure is easy...Fewer psychologists :wink:
More like an epidemic of diagnoses. I think this may have more to do with current trends in preschool education and daycare. Parents are using the CHAT test too at early stages.
Consider the difference between putting an autistic child in daycare as a toddler, using a babysitter or having a parent care for the child at home. The daycare does not offer much one-on-one teaching and children are just expected to do what the group does and learn that way (like school). We have to think that maybe this is not going to be an effective method of teaching a child who is independent and is always doing their own thing such as an autistic child. The babysitters vary greatly in quality where some caregivers will give more attention and others will just park the child in front of a television or just leave them alone. A parent might also not provide too much instruction to the child or provide excellent teaching at home. I think type and quality of early childhood education makes a huge impact on how an autistic child will be.
My own experience. I started school at age 5 with a few problems gettting along with other children and knowing when I was supposed to sit and listen or play. My mother had me at home with her and other siblings. She taught me much at home before school: counting, colours, letters, some other skills. I learned much better from my mother than at school. After I learned to read well, I learned much on my own. I am sure that if I had been at daycare from age 2, I would not have learned much at all. I needed the one-on-one from my parents.
Does anyone else have any opinions on this matter?
Nor sure whose blog that is, but they are providing good links to some nasty sites that would be better to be broken, IMO.
today's socitey is empazing group work and group play more than ever now. i never liked group work too much, i'm more of an independent worker and find people not too relabie to work with (i can really only 100% trust my parents and sibling), although i can trust some other adults almost as much. since autistics generally like to work alone more than the general population, they are going to find problems in group work, therefore, we're going to be called deficent. i wasn't in school until i was 5, that was good as i knew the basics and they didn't really empaize group work until later on. i think we should empaize indivual work first, then group work can come later when the basics are hammerd, for reinformenent stuff, and used occasionly only.
The scienceblogs actually have some very interesting points discussed.
Nor sure whose blog that is, but they are providing good links to some nasty sites that would be better to be broken, IMO.
Orac is one of Kevin Leitch's allies in blogging against the chelationists. He's definitely on our side.