Don't be Afraid of the New Autism Diagnosis

Cathy Lord, in a piece that she wrote for the Huffington Post, said:

In the DSM-5, we propose a new way of looking at these disorders, merging them into a single diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. We believe this will create more accurate diagnoses and improved access to services. It should also improve research into ASD, because there will be less diagnostic confusion

And I agree.  I feel that there has be undue anxiety regarding a variety of issues.  There are a host of reasons why these changes are being implemented.  For example:

1. Research suggested that there was considerable confusion among researchers, doctors, psychologists and psychiatrists regarding the criteria of PDD-NOS, Autistic Disorder, and Asperger Disorder.  Often we saw "graduations" of one disorder into the other, which tended to be problematic, often leaving people with the complex task of attempting to identify a label instead of looking to begin interventions and help the children and adults in need.
2. Emergent research suggests that Asperger Disorder and Autistic Disorder, as currently defined in the DSM-IV differ only in levels of language and/or IQ (one may argue that IQ as a construct is heavily influences by language, but that is a debate that I would leave for some of my other colleagues).  The Neurodevelopmental group of the DSM-5 argued that they did not want  diagnostic decisions to be based on IQ or language. One can argue that there is a paucity of studies that have looked at this difference (Relying on memory, I can recall roughly 15 articles in the period from 1994 - 2012), and I would argue that the reason more research is not being published in peer-review publications is that these studies are finding no difference except in language and IQ.  
3. Others have bemoaned the fact that there the DSM is dropping Childhood Disintegrative Disorder (CDD).  While there isn't a good base of experimental data to support this difference, we see that emergent case study research suggests that CDD is probably the norm.  That is to say, the group hypothesized that autism is an auto-immune disorder which kicks in within the first few months of a child's life, similar to MS which kicks in in the fourth decade of someone's life.  This might explain parents' descriptions of the disorder.  A fascinating hypothesis, which may be the key to explaining such parental reports.

I agree with Cathy Lord and the work that her Neurodevelopmental group has engaged in.

Why is CHC Theory Not Accepted by Mainstream Media?

I was going through a few online things, and stumbled upon the about:psychology site. I checked the Theories of Intelligence page. This page (and site) is targeted to laypersons and is by no means a substitute for psychology training.

Curiously absent is CHC Theory. CHC (which stands for Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory after the three theorists which have helped to advance it) is a topic which I have not blogged about for a while, but I have actually had several discussions about why CHC as a theory of intelligence (or cognitive abilities) is not more widespread.

It is important to promote CHC Theory as it has demonstrated the most reliability and validity when compared to other intelligence theories. This is an important fact in the age of "evidence-based" practices. It also operates on an almost "open-source" model in which it is open to a vast amount of people who seem to research small tracts of the theory in order to add to the collective whole (by the way, this is actually the way that science needs to work).

For those of you who have attempted to read up on CHC theory, you will be the first to agree that there are few, if any primers on the theory. There are no websites with snippets of information on the theory, what it is all about, and how it might be applied.

Why not? Let me know.

Criticism of Piaget

I've often been surprised at how much people in education(and laypersons as well) take for granted that Jean Piaget's work may be false. Although we question many aspects of our lives, such as religion, politics, even the decision to vaccinate children against viruses and cancers, we often do not question "big names" in psychology.

Well, we should.

I'm not going to go into the intricacies of Piaget's theory. If you are interested, you should reference the Wikipedia article on his life and work. However, in general, Piaget's theory indicates that children progress intellectually through four stages of development: Sensorimotor, Preoperational, Concrete Operations and Formal Operations. At each one of these levels, Piaget posited, there were different challenges that the child needed to deal with. He also indicated that unless the child mastered the tasks in the one stage, he or she could not master the tasks in other stages.

There are problems that are inherent in all theories which posit "stages" of development. Development does not occur in discrete stages - it occurs whenever the environment places increased demands and/or provides less support to the individual. In our society, it simply appears that we all tend to place these demands on children at around the same time - this makes it appear that we are witnessing "stages" of development.

Zimmerman conducted a series of various studies beginning around the 1960's and up until today demonstrating that if the environment placed certain demands, then children would surpass what was expected of them.

Here are some other studies:

Baillargeon et al. (1985). Infants could identify, to a reasonable degree, events which violated the laws of physics, even though, Piaget noted that infants at the "sensorimotor" stage could not do so.

Das Gupta & Bryant (1988). Children were able to follow simple transformations, even though, Piaget noted that children at the "pre-operational" stage could not do so.

Hughes (1978). Children were able to take the perspective of multiple people even though, Piaget noted that children at the "pre-operational" stage could not do so.

Light, Buckingham & Robbins (1979). When children were taught to pay attention to the concrete properties of an event (e.g., pouring liquids into different sized beakers), then they were able to do so, even though, Piaget noted that children at the "pre-operational" stage could not do so.

McCarrigle (1978). When given discrete instruction about the super-ordinate and sub-ordinate categories, children were able to classify information effectively.

Piaget was instrumental in getting people to think about children as individuals who are developing. However, children develop in radically different ways. Assessments of intelligence (WISC-IV) appreciate this as these children tend to go through items as much as possible. There is no cap on how much a child can or cannot do on a particular set of items.

Severe stress harmful to children's brain

A study conducted by researchers at the Standford School of Medicine and Lucile Packard Hospital found that severe stress can affect children's brain development, according to U.S. researchers. Although this finding had been replicated previously with animals, this was the first study of its kind conducted with children.

Children with PTSD and high levels of cortisol (a stress hormone released by the adrenal glands) were likely to experience a decrease in the size of the hippocampus, a brain structure important in memory processing and emotion.

The children in the study were suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, as a result of undergoing physical, emotional or sexual abuse, witnessing violence or experiencing lasting separation and loss. This type of developmental trauma often impairs the child's ability to reach social, emotional and academic milestones.

The researchers studied 15 children from age 7 to 13 suffering from PTSD. They measured the volume of the hippocampus at the beginning and end of the 12- to 18-month study period.
After correcting for gender and for physiological maturity, they found that kids with more severe PTSD symptoms and higher bedtime cortisol levels (another marker of stress) at the start of the study were more likely to have reductions in their hippocampal volumes at the end of the study than their less-affected, but still traumatized peers.

The researchers speculated that cognitive deficits arising from stress hormones interfere with psychiatric therapy and prolong symptoms.

Children predisposed by genetics or environment to be more anxious than their peers are also more likely to develop PTSD in response to emotional trauma, perhaps because their responses to other life experiences simply left them closer to that threshold than less-anxious children, according to the study to be published in the March issue of Pediatrics.

Coaching children to act like they are Mentally Retarded

The AP reported yesterday that a woman admitted Monday that she coached her two children to fake retardation starting when they were 4 and 8 years old so she could collect Social Security benefits on their behalf.

Rosie Costello, 46, admitted in U.S. District Court that she collected more than $280,000 in benefits, beginning in the mid-1980s. Most was from Social Security, but the state social services agency paid $53,000.

Costello pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the government and Social Security fraud. Her son, Pete, 26, pleaded guilty earlier this month. Federal prosecutors in Seattle said Monday authorities had not yet located her daughter, Marie.

According to the plea agreement, Costello began coaching her daughter at age 4, and later used the same ruse with her son. He feigned retardation into his mid-20s -- picking at his face, slouching and appearing uncommunicative in meetings with Social Security officials.

Social Security workers became suspicious and uncovered a video of Pete Costello ably contesting a traffic ticket in a Vancouver courtroom.

Pete Costello is scheduled to be sentenced May 11 and faces from six months to a year in prison, as well as $59,000 in restitution. Rosie Costello is scheduled for sentencing May 17. Her standard sentencing range was not immediately available, but in the plea agreement she agreed to repay the government.

That's pretty extreme.

Math anxiety saps working memory

Worrying about how you’ll perform on a math test may actually contribute to a lower test score This worry can often sap the brain’s limited amount of working memory, a resource needed to compute difficult math problems.

This research was conducted by Mark Ashcroft, a psychologist at the University of Nevada Los Vegas. He speculated that math anxiety occupies a person’s working memory.

Ashcroft speculated while easy math tasks such as addition require only a small fraction of a person’s working memory, harder computations require much more.

Worrying about math takes up a large chunk of a person’s working memory stores as well, spelling disaster for the anxious student who is taking a high-stakes test.

Stress about how one does on tests like college entrance exams can make even good math students choke.

Although test preparation classes can help students overcome this anxiety, they are limited to students whose families can afford them.

Praise effort not intelligence

After reading a lot of the material out there by Carol Dweck, both in the popular media as well as the actual research, it still surprises me that many people out there are reluctant to stop praising kids for how smart they are.

While I was working this morning, I was shocked to hear one mother remark out loud (only to the child - none of her adult friends were around) how smart her toddler was because he put a book back in the bookstore. Those of you who are curious, there is no item on any assessment of intelligence that asks a child to put books away.

I had a copy of Carol Dweck's book, and I dropped it in front of her and walked away.

Praising a person's intelligence only decreases the amount of effort that that person will exert in the future.

People (and children) tend to see intelligence as a fixed, all-or-none concept. I got it or I don't. Some children may distinguish math intelligence from video-game intelligence, but many don't think too deeply about such fine distinctions. These children then reason, "If I am intelligent, then things should come easy to me."

They then do some interesting things. They become invested in maintaining this status of "intelligent" by avoiding things that don't come easy to them. The opposite is true - if a child believes that he or she is not intelligent, they will avoid things that don't come easy to them so as to not confirm this belief, and will usually engage in activities that seem to come easy to them (usually disruptive behavior).

Praising effort leads children to believe that they are in control of their performance. "I failed my math test because I didn't study/ didn't pay attention/ didn't work hard enough" vs. "I failed because I am stupid" are two radically different statements. The first denotes that by changing my effort, I can change performance in the future. The second indicates that there is really nothing more I can do to improve.

So please, stop praising intelligence.

Babies do form memories; they just forget...

The AP reports that babies' rate of forgetting is even faster than that of adults, this quote taken directly from Patricia J. Bauer of Duke University said Friday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Bauer was part of a panel discussing "infant amnesia," the puzzling inability of people to remember events early in life.

Previous neuropsychological orthodoxy stated that babies' brains were simply unable to form memories, but Bauer said new research indicates that is incorrect; this was due to the fact that the hippocampal structures were not solidly developed at such a young age (they tend to solidify at age 3).

The ability to form memories depends on a network of structures in the brain and these develop at different times, Bauer said. As the networks come together between 6 months and 18 months of life, researchers see increased efficiency in the ability to form short-and long-term memory, she said.

From age six months to two years, memory increases from about 24 hours to a year researchers stated. But, noting that children, like adults, forget, she compared the brains of infants and adults to colanders used to drain food. The adult colander has small holes, for draining something like orzo or rice, while the infant colander has larger holes, such as for draining large penne pasta, but allowing more information to flow out.

Bauer's research proceeded by testing infants by using objects such as cups and blocks. In one test a baby would be shown two cups, a block would be put into one, the other cup would be put over the top and the group would be shaken to form a rattle.

This is something children do not do instinctively, she explained, but once they see it they can copy it, and researchers can see how long they remember when given the same objects.
Oakes said she studied infants by watching how long they would look at something. Babies will look longer at something new than something they are familiar with, she said, which allows researchers to calculate how long the baby remembers something.

Tracy DeBoer of the University of California, Davis, said babies born to diabetic mothers are at increased risk of memory loss. Such children may have shortages of oxygen and iron before birth and that can cause impaired memory when they are growing. That impairment did not occur in cases where the mothers' diabetes was controlled during pregnancy, she added.

Attitudes regarding intelligence influence children's academics

A new study in the scientific journal Child Development shows that if you teach students that their intelligence can grow and increase, they do better in school.

All children develop a belief about their own intelligence, according to research psychologist Carol Dweck from Stanford University, often influenced by what parents and others in their environment tell them.

"Some students start thinking of their intelligence as something fixed, as carved in stone,"

Dweck says. "They worry about, 'Do I have enough? Don't I have enough?'" Others do not make effortful attempts because they have been told (and have been convinced) that since they are smart, effort is for dummies. Dweck calls this a "fixed mindset" of intelligence.

Some other children think intelligence is something you can develop your whole life. Dweck calls this a "growth mindset" of intelligence.

Dweck investigated whether a child's belief about intelligence has anything to do with academic success. So, first, she looked at several hundred students going into seventh grade, and assessed which students believed their intelligence was unchangeable, and which children believed their intelligence could grow. Then she looked at their math grades over the next two years.
"We saw among those with the growth mindset steadily increasing math grades over the two years," she says. But that wasn't the case for those with the so-called "fixed mindset." They showed a decrease in their math grades.

Dweck and her colleague from Columbia, Lisa Blackwell next investigated if they "gave" students a growth mindset, by teaching them how to think about their intelligence, what effect would that have on their grades?

So, about 100 seventh graders, all doing poorly in math, were randomly assigned to workshops on good study skills. One workshop gave lessons on how to study well. The other taught about the expanding nature of intelligence and the brain.

The students in the latter group "learned that the brain actually forms new connections every time you learn something new, and that over time, this makes you smarter."

Basically, the students were given a mini-neuroscience course on how the brain works. By the end of the semester, the group of kids who had been taught that the brain can grow smarter, had significantly better math grades than the other group.

"When they studied, they thought about those neurons forming new connections," Dweck says. "When they worked hard in school, they actually visualized how their brain was growing."
Dweck says this new mindset changed the kids' attitude toward learning and their willingness to put forth effort. Duke University psychologist, Steven Asher, agrees. Teaching children that they're in charge of their own intellectual growth motivates a child to work hard, he says.
"If you think about a child who's coping with an especially challenging task, I don't think there's anything better in the world than that child hearing from a parent or from a teacher the words, 'You'll get there.' And that, I think, is the spirit of what this is about."