Sign In

Please sign in using the log in form at the top of this page or click here

Not a member

You need to register before you can start a new discussion or comment on a post.

Click the button below to go to our forum registration page.

In this Discussion

Welcome to the PDA Society Forum. Please take time to read the 'Forum terms and conditions', which can be found via this webpage: and also in our NEW Forum User Guide:
Messages in the 'General Discussions' category of the forum are visible to all internet users. You are therefore advised not to post anything of a confidential nature in this category.
Welcome to the PDA Society Discussion Forum. Please read our User Guide for more information and contact if you would like to join one of our closed Member Forums for registered members only.
criteria for PDA
  • Lixina
    Posts: 289
    I wrote up 5 possible sets of criteria for PDA, which I'm planning to use in researching the condition.

    Any comments?
  • Moose
    Posts: 1,843

    I think it would be really helpful to produce a 'neat' set of diagnostic criteria for PDA, but do not think this will be easy.

    I think the greatest difficulty is defining or conveying the cut-off or starting points ( or setting the parameters) for characteristics.

    For example pretend play or role play. An absence of these would be a marker for autism or aspergers, but it's presence indicative of a neurotypical or a PDA child. We have to be able to discern the differences between typical, over active/ advanced and abnormal/obsessive occupation with role and pretend play.
    This is tricky, set the criteria too loose and everyone has PDA, too tight and no one with difficulties is identified.

    I admire you for taking on the challenge and think that your alternative systems are a good starting point for research. Perhaps when you start this you could submit a survey to the forum. This may help in refining criteria and would certainly give you a larger data set to work from.

    I have wondered myself, if the diagnostic process should be a two tier process. stage one being a broader set of criteria identifying an ASD or autistic traits and then sub tests for autism, apergers, PDA etc. Since many PDA children are already suspected of ( or diagnosed) as having an ASD, a differential test could be the most useful ( and accepted) by professionals.

    Just a query, wondered where 'musicality' specifically came from as an associated characteristic? I certainly recognise that many with PDA have strong creative/artistic/aesthetic talents or have a sensitive to the arts, but am interested in the focus on music alone.

  • I'd like to start by saying I love the term Newson's Syndrome, I much prefer it. The word "pathological" has a bad connotation for some people that don't understand the word I have found. And the term Pathological Demand Avoidance describes but one feature of PDA without giving any inclination as to the reasons or implications, and can be misleading. The term Newson's Syndrome doesn't attempt to explain anything and so doesn't fail at explaining anything :P and it gives credit where credit is due really!

    Anyway those diagnostic systems seem to encompass what I've read so far and cover the syndrome really well. I do agree that there's an issue with parameters of a couple of points but some of those things are difficult to quantify. And it wouldn't cause as much difficulty as vague statements like "seems autistic but not quite" which are fine for a general description but would just be silly as a diagnostic criterion. I may just be rambling now.
  • Lixina
    Posts: 289

    Just a query, wondered where 'musicality' specifically came from as an associated characteristic?

    From the detailed report of the 21 kids, which I used as a basis for these criteria. They only had data on musicality of 11 of those kids, and all of those 11 showed an interest in music. Newson hasn't really commented on this, but I thought it seemed significant.
  • There is also a good history for this sort of name politically - I have seen what has happened since Alzheimer's started being used in common parlance as the main term for dementia (it used to be highly specific), and I think the same increase in understanding and respect has happened since Asperger's became a widely used term.
  • I'm interested in the naming too.

    This is so interesting because there are some key things that we wouldn't say fit for S but all the rest does, whereas other key things for other things don't. Hmm, maybe if we ever get to see someone they'll advise further.
This discussion has been closed.
All Discussions