Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts

Friday, 16 November 2018

"Children with DDs [developmental disabilities] had higher chronic school absenteeism"

The findings reported by Lindsey Black & Benjamin Zablotsky [1] were not unexpected. Utilising data derived from the 2014–2016 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) based in the United States, researchers concluded that: "In this nationally representative sample of children aged 5–17 years, children with ADHD [attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder], autism spectrum disorder, and intellectual disability were more likely to have had chronic school absenteeism compared with children who did not have these conditions even after controlling for demographic and selected physical health conditions." The reason I say that such findings were not unexpected is because such observations add to other independent literature on this topic (see here) suggesting that school isn't always a great environment for children with such diagnoses and attendance figures perhaps reflect that.

This isn't the first time that the NHIS has cropped up on this blog (see here and see here). On those previous occasions, the NHIS has provided important evidence that the rates of various developmental disabilities are continuing to increase (autism, developmental delay) whilst some diagnoses are a little more static (intellectual disability) in line with other data (see here). This time around, researchers looked at what role developmental disabilities (DDs) might play in the finding that "14% of all public school students are chronically absent from school, missing 15 or more days per year" in the United States.

Based on the NHIS methodology that involved sampling households with said households completing "a brief questionnaire to collect selected demographics and broad health measures", researchers first ascertained whether "the parent had ever been told by a doctor or health professional
that the child had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, or other developmental delay." They also asked about school absenteeism using the question: "During the past 12 months, about how many days did (sample child) miss school because of illness or injury?" Findings were collated and analysed.

Results: covering nearly 27,000 children, of which about 1 in 10 were diagnosed with ADHD and 2.5% reported to be diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a few important results emerged. Those diagnosed with an intellectual disability (sometimes called a learning disability here in Blighty) "had the highest prevalence of chronic school absenteeism (14.0%)." Chronic school absenteeism by the way, was defined as 15 or more days missing from school throughout the school year. The percentage rates for school absenteeism for autism, developmental delay and ADHD were 9%, 7.2% and 5.2% respectively. Compared against data from children without any reported developmental disability diagnosis, those with DDs were quite a bit more likely to be chronically missing from school even when adjusted for various other co-occurring physical health conditions such as "asthma, allergies, and headaches" or for other demographic differences ("age, sex, race and ethnicity, poverty status, family structure (categorized as two parent, single parent, or other), and geographical region of residence").

Even taking into account possible research caveats such as the fact that "data are based on a parent or guardian report" the Black/Zablotsky findings represent some important data. 'Every school day counts' is an oft-heard about phrase in educational circles, drawing attention to the idea that not only is educational attendance a legal requirement in many countries, but also that as chronic absenteeism creeps in, so educational chances and opportunities start to slip by and where this can potentially lead (see here). This is bad for the kids, bad for the teachers (who often have to 'go over' missed work) and not particularly great for the rest of the class either.

Bearing in mind all that, the next question should really be 'why?' Why are children with DDs more prone to school absenteeism and what can be done to remedy the situation? Well I don't doubt that it's going to be complicated and so doesn't need any sweeping generalisations from me or anyone else. I'm first drawn to mention that whilst Black & Zablotsky controlled for various physical health conditions that might affect school attendance, they probably did not control for all of them (including bouts of illness due to infections for example) and so one needs to look more closely to see if these exerted any effect on their results (see here for another example). My second preference for further study would be to see whether education is actually meeting the child's individual requirements as another area associated with chronic absenteeism. Y'know, the idea that school can be a source of significant stress and strain for children (see here); even in those educational environments that have a more specialised ethos (see here). Finally, and again minus any sweeping generalisations, more research is needed on family circumstances and child's school absenteeism. I know it's a little uncomfortable to mention but irrespective of a child's diagnostic status or not, some parents are not always 'on message' when it comes to the 'every school day counts' idea. Coupled with a child who might not be particularly interested in school, and well, it's not difficult to see how this could play out with regards to the onset and perpetuation of chronic absenteeism. I would add that this is not a universal 'blame the parents' observation.

There are no easy fixes to this issue. But identifying potentially vulnerable groups, asking appropriate questions and providing targeted support, would seem to me to be a step in the right direction.

----------

[1] Black LI. &  Zablotsky B. Chronic School Absenteeism Among Children With Selected Developmental Disabilities: National Health Interview Survey, 2014–2016. National Health Statistics Reports. 2018; 118.

----------

Monday, 12 November 2018

Quality of life and autism continued

"In this study it was found that psychiatric comorbidity, sleeping difficulty, intellectual disability, maladaptive behavior, adaptive functioning, autism symptomatology, main daytime activity and residence were associated with QoL [quality of life], independent of respondent type."

So concluded the findings reported by Ane Knüppel and colleagues [1] continuing an important research theme looking at quality of life with autism in mind (see here and see here and see here). There's nothing specifically novel about the factors reported on as affecting quality of life (QoL) where a diagnosis of autism is mentioned (mental health issues, autism severity, comorbidity, activities, social inclusion) but the fact that authors drew on data from both self-reports and proxy-reports is important and perhaps provides an important dual perspective. Indeed as the authors noted: "Proxy-reported QoL is different from self-reported QoL and should be considered as an alternative source of information." Similar sentiments have been expressed recently (see here).

Having previously talked [2] about the properties of the specific instrument used to gauge QoL with autism in mind, the authors relied on responses on the INICO-FEAPS scale in their investigation. More than 1700 participants with autism completed the scale where: "For 165 individuals with ASD [autism spectrum disorder], self-reports only were available, and for 863 individuals with ASD, only parental proxy-reports were available." The scale itself is pretty comprehensive, consisting of "72 items divided into the following eight subdomains: self-determination, rights, emotional wellbeing, social inclusion, personal development, interpersonal relationships, material wellbeing, and physical wellbeing." A higher score on the INICO-FEAPS scale denotes a higher QoL 'level'. Various other measures were also included for study; some of them based on the setting of the study in Denmark and the fact that Scandinavian countries are particularly 'geared up' for collecting all-manner of details on the basis of various national registries held on the population.

Alongside the results suggesting that various factors seemed to be important to QoL, there were some details to consider. So: "Across all respondent groups, the lowest rated QoL domains were emotional wellbeing (range of means = 71.10–74.05) and interpersonal relationships (range of means = 65.07–71.88), and the highest rated QoL domains were rights (range of means = 83.79–86.21) and material wellbeing." Further, researchers also observed that being employed or in education also correlated with a higher QoL score "compared to individuals without any regular daytime activity" and "significant associations were found for all respondent groups, with lower levels of QoL among individuals living with their parents... and among individuals with ASD living outside the family home with support... compared to individuals living independently without support."

I was also interested in the idea discussed by the authors that: "treating psychiatric comorbidity, reducing maladaptive behavior, raising the level of independence, and offering individuals with ASD an opportunity to be involved in any job-related occupation or to receive education may raise the level of QoL." 'Treating psychiatric comorbidity' is already a research and clinical priority when it comes to autism (see here and see here). Yes, science needs to do a lot better in terms of establishing the 'hows-and-whys' of such comorbidity being over-represented alongside autism but there are some important themes starting to emerge (see here) including that looking at core autism symptoms as being potential risk factors for the appearance of such issues. And once again we can look to an important group of people for further clues as to how such psychiatric issues are indeed perhaps more 'core' than comorbidity (see here).

Although 'reducing maladaptive behaviour' potentially covers a lot of 'challenging' ground - "Behavior classified as self-destructive, breaking belongings, defiant, disruptive, hurtful to others and/or socially offensive" - I don't think anyone would seriously argue against the idea that such behaviours are neither good for the individual nor good for those around them. I'm minded to suggest that the reason(s) for such behaviour are likely to be complex (see here and see here), but one thing that could be useful would be to look at some of the research on particular 'profiles' being present and connected to autism and beyond (see here) as a starting point.

And then there is also the suggestion of a possible effect for society more generally, as in ensuring that education and employment opportunities are available to all and making 'an inclusive society' a priority...

----------

[1] Knüppel A. et al. Quality of life in adolescents and adults with autism spectrum disorder: Results from a nationwide Danish survey using self-reports and parental proxy-reports. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2018; 83: 247-259.

[2] Knüppel A. et al. Psychometric properties of the INICO-FEAPS scale in a Danish sample with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2018; 75: 11-21.

----------

Tuesday, 30 October 2018

On the link between academic achievement and drug abuse: stay in school kids!

"These results provide empirical support for efforts to improve academic achievement as a means to reduce risk of drug abuse."

So said the findings reported by Kenneth Kendler and colleagues [1] who aimed to answer the research question: "To what extent is the known association between poor academic achievement and risk of drug abuse influenced by causal processes?" This follows a scheme of other research from authors on this topic [2].

I'll admit to being slightly outside of my research comfort zone with the topic under investigation and methods used by Kendler et al. I'm aware of the observation that higher academic achievement *might* reduce the risk of drug abuse but I'm not particularly au fait with the scientific literature looking at this relationship. No mind, the Kendler paper is another example of good value for [scientific] money insofar as authors reporting on the use of two different methodologies - "using instrumental variable and co-relative analysis designs" - to try and answer the 'causal' question. Sweden was the research starting point, and some rather impressive study cohort figures: "instrumental variable analysis included 934 462 participants (478 341 males and 456 121 females" followed for nearly 20 years and: "Co-relative analyses were conducted in pairs of cousins (263 222 pairs), full siblings (154 295), and monozygotic twins (1623) discordant for AA [academic achievement]." Alongside looking at academic achievement as a function of month of birth, they also had access to data on a history of drug abuse as per: "Drug abuse registration in national medical, criminal, or pharmacy registries."

The combined results suggested that there is a "significant association observed between AA at 16 years of age and risk of DA [drug abuse] into middle adulthood" and that the link "may be causal". They stress how keeping kids/young adults in school and learning and (hopefully) achieving could provide some important protection against the development of drug abuse. Accepting that drug abuse often has wider implications and effects than for just individuals, I don't doubt that the message 'stay in school' might also impact more extensively too.

And minus any sweeping generalisations, the findings presented by Mochrie and colleagues [3] offer at least one clinical direction where efforts might need to be especially focused...

----------

[1] Kendler KS. et al. Academic Achievement and Drug Abuse Risk Assessed Using Instrumental Variable Analysis and Co-relative Designs. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018. Sept 5.

[2] Kendler KS. et al. Social and economic consequences of alcohol use disorder: a longitudinal cohort and co-relative analysis. Psychol Med. 2017 Apr;47(5):925-935.

[3] Mochrie KD. et al. ADHD, depression, and substance abuse risk among beginning college students. J Am Coll Health. 2018 Sep 26:1-5.

----------

Monday, 7 May 2018

"evidence that in utero exposure to certain AEDs can cause developmental problems in children"

AEDs mentioned in the title of this post refer to antiepileptic drugs, a class of medicines that provide life-enhancing and sometimes life-saving relief from symptoms of various conditions headed under the term epilepsy. As I've mentioned previously on this blog, the management of epilepsy is not something to be taken lightly given what the condition(s) can mean in terms of (life-threatening) risks. AEDs provide both an important management and preventative tool. Don't ever forget that.

The results published by Arron Lacey and colleagues [1] add to a bank of peer-reviewed research observing that whilst various AEDs provide an important service with regards to the management of epilepsy, they are not however without potential risks of their own. Indeed, the risks following consumption of such medicines - or at least certain AEDs - during pregnancy when it comes to offspring outcomes are seemingly becoming more and more evident as ever more [peer-reviewed] science appears...

I should at this point mention that no medical or clinical advice is given or intended on this blog. This is even more pertinent when it comes to this topic and what epilepsy means to many, many people. If you want further information about the topic discussed today, please, speak to your prescribing physician and don't make any medication changes without their input and say-so.

OK, Lacey et al started out with the aim of investigating "the effect of AED exposure in utero on the educational attainment of children born to mothers with epilepsy using anonymised, routinely collected healthcare records and the results of a standard national educational assessment." That anonymised database was something called the Secure Anonymous Information Linkage (SAIL) databank, a resource funded by Health and Care Research Wales, thus providing a clue as to the population on which this research was carried out with.

Researchers identified women diagnosed with epilepsy - "a diagnosis of epilepsy if their GP [general practitioner] record contained an epilepsy diagnosis code as well as a record of repeat AED prescriptions" - who had children, and looked also at their child's education attainment at 7 years of age. In case you might not be familiar with measuring educational attainment here in the UK (yes, Wales is a country part of the UK), the particular assessments taken at 7 years of age are called the Key Stage 1 (KS1) SATs. Maths and English made up the core topics alongside science at the study time in question. Educational data of offspring were included in the statistical mix and results reported as a function of maternal epilepsy and corresponding prescription of AEDs.

Results: "We demonstrate through the analysis of linked data in the SAIL databank that mothers being prescribed multiple AEDs and those being prescribed sodium valproate have children with significantly poorer attainment in national tests at the age of 7." The authors once again (see here) specifically zoomed in on a role for valproate when it came to educational outcomes of offspring; where: "there was no difference seen in children exposed to carbamazepine, lamotrigine or mothers who did not take drugs during pregnancy." Importantly also, authors noted that: "We did not find a significant decrease in attainment in children born to mothers with epilepsy who were not prescribed an AED during pregnancy" indicating that maternal epilepsy was probably not a 'cause' of the results obtained. Finally, when cases of smoking during pregnancy - something that also seems to be able to affect offspring developmental and/or cognitive outcomes - were removed from the statistical mix, authors reported that the results did not notably change.

There are some important strengths associated with the study results by Lacey and colleagues. A large cohort, clinical information on the diagnosis of epilepsy and associated prescribed AEDs, and the reliance on "a standardised national assessment as a measure of performance" with "results [that] would closer reflect the learning experience of children at this age compared with an IQ test" all add up to something pretty impressive. The authors note that they did not / were not able to control for other potentially important variables such as parental characteristics that may have impacted on the study results but no investigation is perfect. That analysis based on epilepsy medicated vs. not medicated during pregnancy kinda helps matters but does not mean every potentially important variable was controlled for.

So yet again, valproate use crops up and yet again it seems to be earning its 'black triangle' status. I've lost track of the number of health-related agencies that have provided guidance on valproate use during pregnancy - one of the latest seems to be the European Medicines Agency that recently recommended "new measures to avoid exposure of babies to valproate medicines in the womb." Also going as far as noting that: "Babies exposed are at risk of malformations and developmental problems." There's even a call for it to be "compulsory to enrol all women who take valproate into a national registry" [2].

How much more evidence is required? Indeed, how much more evidence [3]...

Then the question remains: how does gestational exposure to valproate affect something like academic achievement and developmental course? Well, we have some clues (see here) but further investigations are of course implied.

----------

[1] Lacey AS. et al. Educational attainment of children born to mothers with epilepsy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018. March 27.

[2] Thomas RH. Valproate: life-saving, life-changing. Clin Med (Lond). 2018 Apr 1;18(Suppl 2):s1-s8.

[3] Paton C. et al. A UK clinical audit addressing the quality of prescribing of sodium valproate for bipolar disorder in women of childbearing age. BMJ Open. 2018 Apr 12;8(4):e020450.

----------

Thursday, 5 April 2018

Estimated autism prevalence in Canada in 2015: 1 in 66

"On March 29, 2018, the Public Health Agency of Canada published the first comprehensive review of the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in Canada."

So began the 'what did we find' summary (see here) covering the "Made in Canada" findings detailed in the Canadian National Autism Spectrum Disorder Surveillance System (NASS) 2018 Report (see here) [1]. Pertinent to the year 2015 and including some 88% of the children and young adults living in various participating Provinces and Territory, data was gathered from various sources (education, social services, health) onward to the estimated prevalence of diagnosed autism in Canada.

Their results: "Among children and youth 5–17 years old across seven provinces and territory, the combined prevalence of ASD for the year 2015 is 1 in 66 (15.2 per 1,000)" (bold text added by me).

Details, details, details... Such an estimate applies to children and young adults (youth) diagnosed with autism and does not say anything about the number of adults diagnosed with autism. It only covers those diagnosed with autism based on strict criteria: "The diagnosis of ASD is provided or confirmed by a licensed health care professional(s)... [and] The diagnosis of ASD is based on the clinical criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) for Mental Disorders or the case is identified as ASD in the International Classification for Diseases (ICD)." It does not provide any information on how many people *might* be autistic but not yet in receipt of a diagnosis. Males made up the lion's share of those diagnosed. Most had been diagnosed by the age of 8 years (72%). Oh, and not every Province or Territory showed the same estimated prevalence rate for various potential reasons. And rest.

Also pretty important to the reported findings is the comparison with earlier years estimates: for 3 geographic locations in Canada we see the characteristic 'upward trend' in the estimated prevalence of ASD noted in other sample data from other countries, from around 4-6 per 1,000 in 2003 to between 16-20 per 1,000 in 2015. And when compared with a neighbour to the South (USA) and their estimated autism prevalence stats covering 2012 (see here) coming up with a figure of 1 in 68, the Canadian estimates are not a million miles away,. This, bearing in mind, some differences in the way the different country figures were arrived at and also the time periods covered. That also reminds me, we should be seeing the latest US stats on estimated autism prevalence from the CDC at some point in the (very) near future, and the promise that "the ADDM Network will be able to estimate ASD case status on the basis of both DSM-5 and DSM-IV-TR." Those comparisons should be rather interesting in light of other preliminary data (see here).

What else it there to say? Diagnosed autism is fairly prevalent across Canada (who have some important history in relation to the autism 'numbers game') and I assume we'll be seeing more on their tracking of the diagnosis in future times. Preparation is an important part of the figures being discussed; preparation of education, social and health services to support the numbers of children and young adults being diagnosed now and who, I assume, will eventually be transitioning to adult services. And on the topic of adult services, I'll refer you to Harold Doherty's blog and some of his opinions on adult services in a Canadian setting (see here).

Finally, is the question of 'why' the increase? Well, let's wait and see what those US CDC figures say first and how useful they might be to answering 'why' in the Canadian and other contexts too. I say this accepting that those 'better awareness', 'diagnostic switching' and 'broader criteria' arguments that have long been trumpeted as 'fact' are probably not all there is to see in this area (see here and see here).

----------

[1] Autism Spectrum Disorder among children and youth in Canada 2018. Public Health Agency of Canada. 2018. March 2018.

----------

Monday, 25 September 2017

Anxiety prevention meta-analysed and some implications...

"Psychological and/or educational interventions had a small but statistically significant benefit for anxiety prevention in all populations evaluated. Although more studies with larger samples and active comparators are needed, these findings suggest that anxiety prevention programs should be further developed and implemented."

That was the research bottom-line published by Patricia Moreno-Peral and colleagues [1] assessing the collected peer-reviewed literature pertinent to the question: "Are psychological and/or educational preventive interventions for anxiety effective in varied populations?" An accompanying editorial on the Moreno-Peral findings is also worthwhile reading [2].

The methodological name of the game was systematic review and meta-analysis followed by "meta-regression" to boil down data from some 29 studies examining whether "psychological and/or educational interventions are effective in the prevention of anxiety." Said interventions covered some ground but in the most part relied on the use of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).

I'm not going to say too much more about the Moreno-Peral findings because I think they speak for themselves. I do however want to make comment on the authors' use of the term 'varied populations' to highlight potential implications for a couple of populations pertinent to this blog: (a) the autism spectrum and (b) those diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME).

Starting with autism, there are two salient points to make: (i) anxiety is pretty rife in relation to autism (see here and see here) and (ii) treating anxiety in relation to autism already has some peer-reviewed science efforts (see here) but little so far has seemingly been done on the point of potentially heading-off clinically relevant anxiety before it takes hold. I say this mindful of the idea that core symptoms linked to autism might be potential 'anxiety-provokers' (see here). Quite a bit more research is needed to ensure that psychological and/or educational interventions for anxiety currently available are specifically tailored to the wants and needs of those on the autism spectrum (including all of the spectrum!) but this area promises quite a bit. It's also worth appreciating that there may be a place for other types of prevention/intervention when it comes to anxiety (see here for example) in the context of autism (see here).

I also mentioned the [careful] application of the Moreno-Peral findings to CFS/ME. Coincidentally at the time of writing this post, I stumbled across the paper by Sarah Stoll and colleagues [3] asking: 'What treatments work for anxiety in children with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME)?' The answer, based on the available literature is 'we don't know yet' with the requirement for more investigations.

I tread very carefully in this area based on the fact that whilst anxiety does seem to be part and parcel of some CFS/ME (see here), suggestions about the possible usefulness of something like CBT to manage anxiety have to viewed in the context of CBT still courting controversy as part of the biopsychosocial 'view' of CFS/ME (see here) (something that is relevant to other recent discussions about CFS/ME). Indeed, one might see the Stoll findings in the context that the 'failure' of interventions like CBT in relation to treating core CFS/ME (see here for what I mean by 'failure') is moving some people along to still try and stick with CBT but re-do and re-apply it in the context of treating more peripheral signs and symptoms accompanying CFS/ME such as anxiety. I might be wrong but...

To close, but keeping the CFS/ME link in mind, I once again note a welcomed U-turn from NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) on the topic of CFS/ME: "The strong message from stakeholders was that the continuing debate about the causes of this condition and the best approach to treatment argued for a review of the current guideline." I've said it before and will say it again: patient-power has driven this reconsideration (see here)...

----------

[1] Moreno-Peral P. et al. Effectiveness of Psychological and/or Educational Interventions in the Prevention of Anxiety. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017. Sept 6.

[2] Hudson JL. Prevention of Anxiety Disorders Across the Lifespan. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017. Sept 6.

[3] Stoll SVE. et al. What treatments work for anxiety in children with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME)? Systematic review. BMJ Open. 2017; 7: e015481.

----------

Tuesday, 18 July 2017

Anxiety disorder is rife in 'high-functioning' autism

"Lifetime prevalence rates of 53.5% for depressive disorder 73.5% for anxiety disorders and 37.5% for ADHD [attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder] were found."

Those were the figures arrived at by Alexandru Gaman and colleagues [1] who set about investigating the "prevalence rates of psychiatric co-morbidities" among other things in a cohort of over a hundred adults diagnosed with "high-functioning" autism via the quite recently revised DSM-5 criteria. I've stressed the words 'high-functioning' to denote this being the authors' words not mine (personally, I'm not so sure that general level of functioning is all that good as a descriptor).

Various other observations were made by authors such as the finding that: "Subjects with psychotic co-morbid symptoms had a more severe social deficit" which might tap into some other discussions being had on how some of the screening instruments talked about with autism in mind are seemingly not adverse from potentially picking up other labels with a psychosis element to them (see here). I say that also with the understanding that at least for some, autism and psychosis are not diagnostically unstrange bedfellows (see here).

I've zoomed in on the anxiety disorder(s) bit to the Gaman findings because of their very high lifetime prevalence and because, day-to-day, anxiety disorders can be absolutely disabling for many people on the autism spectrum (see here). Indeed, with all the very positive talk about things like employment and further education opportunities [slowly] increasing for autistic young people and adults, one of the details that does not seem to be talked about as much is how issues like anxiety can significantly hinder not only efforts to get a job/student place but also keeping that job/student place in the longer term (see here). Talent is being outshone by crushing anxiety in some cases.

Gaman and colleagues concluded by talking about how identification of something like anxiety disorder is "a crucial clinical issue." I would very definitely agree with this viewpoint but more than that, efforts now need to go into what can be done about treating/managing such anxiety to make people's lives easier (see here); accepting that we still have some distance to go in this process [2]. I'd also like to see some kind of research parity being arrived at specifically with regards to the question: how prevalent and what effects does anxiety have for those NOT described as having 'high-functioning' autism?

To close, having recently been party to some interesting debate on social media about the ins-and-outs, rights-and-wrongs and positives-and-negatives of [exclusive] self-diagnosis with autism in mind, I'd like to link to a paper by Ashwood and colleagues [3] on how one of the premier 'are you autistic?' self-report schedules is not necessarily fit for purpose when it comes to a self-diagnosis of autism. Indeed pertinent to today's post, how "generalized anxiety disorder may ‘mimic’ ASD [autism spectrum disorder] and inflate AQ [Autism-Spectrum Quotient] scores, leading to false positives" echos a viewpoint that I championed: identity, emotions and politics aside, there is no substitute for a thorough professional assessment when autism is suspected. Outside of such an assessment being potentially pertinent to the idea that autism rarely appears in some sort of diagnostic vacuum (see here), it is perhaps even more important as the DSM-5 criteria for ASD and SCD [social (pragmatic) communication disorder] start to become even more mainstream and what it means/will mean to the concept of autistic identity too...

----------

[1] Gaman A. et al. Psychiatric co-morbidities in a French cohort of adults with high-functioning autism (HFA). European Psychiatry. 2017; 41: S136.

[2] Lorenc T. et al. Support for adults with autism spectrum disorder without intellectual impairment: Systematic review. Autism. 2017 Jun 1:1362361317698939.

[3] Ashwood KL. et al. Predicting the diagnosis of autism in adults using the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ) questionnaire. Psychological Medicine. 2016;46(12):2595-2604.

----------

Friday, 23 June 2017

How helpful is a 'geek index'?

A quote to begin: "male offspring of older fathers had higher ‘geek index’ scores, a composite measure of high IQ, strong focus on the subject of interest and social aloofness."

So said the findings published by Magdelena Janecka and colleagues [1] (open-access) who set out to determine whether "having an older father is associated with certain beneficial traits" in offspring. Their use of the term 'geek index' (GI) was derived from a "composite measure of non-verbal intelligence, restrictive interests and reduced need to fit in with the peer group" based on data derived from the TEDS (Twin Early Development Study) initiative (something that has cropped up before on this blog). As one might imagine, use of the term 'geek index' in a science article was always likely to make some media headlines (see here for example).

In terms of study design and numbers, this was a biggie with study participants in the thousands. The geek index was derived from scores "of (i) non-verbal intelligence, (ii) restrictive and repetitive behaviours (RRBs) and (iii) social aloofness." Further: "Scores on the Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices test were used to obtain (i). Childhood Autism Spectrum Test (CAST) scores were used to obtain both (ii) and (iii)." Various statistical 'transformations' were conducted on said scores to give that geek index sum and, not forgetting the parental age bit, paternal age was also thrown into the statistical mix.

As per the opening sentence, those children born to older fathers (but not older mothers) seemed to more frequently present with a higher geek index. This association persisted after controlling for various potentially confounding variables: "maternal age, sex, zygosity and SES [socio-economic status]." Researchers further observed that: "GI was positively linked with future academic attainment—including the key predictors of future SES—suggesting a phenotypic advantage in the offspring of older fathers."

These are interesting results and notwithstanding some study limitations i.e. "It was not possible to determine whether the advantageous effects of GI extend beyond secondary education, and correlate with future SES" require further independent investigation. Offspring being born to older fathers has generally been associated with various less-than-positive outcomes so this article kinda paints a more positive picture for children and families. Indeed, one of the commentators talking about these findings suggests that "perhaps we are destined for future society of geniuses that are going to help us solve all the world's problems." One would hope so.

As per the title of this post, I would however question how useful/helpful the term 'geek index' is when it comes to outcomes and implications. Yes, I know there is such a thing as 'geek chic' these days, but let's not forget that the word 'geek' has it's primary origins as a term of ridicule in many languages. To quote one definition: "the word typically connotes an expert or enthusiast or a person obsessed with a hobby or intellectual pursuit, with a general pejorative meaning of a "peculiar person, especially one who is perceived to be overly intellectual, unfashionable, or socially awkward."" I'm not so sure that every child (youngster or teenager) would be particularly happy to be labelled as scoring high on a geek index. Surely something a little more scientific could replace such a term?

Going also back to those study caveats provided by the authors, I might also raise the idea that just because someone shows an intellectual advantage when it comes to something like STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) subjects does not necessarily mean that their future is going to be a rosy one in terms of employment, income or other markers of SES. “If you look at who does well in life right now, it’s geeks” is one of the quotes attributed to the first author of the paper; and with it as massive a sweeping generalisation as you will ever see.

If we for example, assume that strengths in STEM might be over-represented when it comes to the autism spectrum (see here) we should be seeing lots and lots of people either diagnosed with autism or possessing significant autistic traits thriving in such roles and in life in general. The reality however is that skills pertinent to STEM often do not appear in a vacuum (see here) as I would put forward the suggestion that future research might also consider the possibility of a relationship between the geek index (or other term) and the presentation of something like anxiety or depression and how that might also impact on later adult outcomes for example. The additional idea that social aloofness also makes up part of the geek index is something else that needs quite a lot more work on as part of any 'advantage' arguments being put forward...

----------

[1] Janecka M. et al. Advantageous developmental outcomes of advancing paternal age. Translational Psychiatry. 2017. 7; e1156.

----------

Saturday, 22 October 2016

Language and motor skills: preschool predictors of academic achievement in autism

A fairly quick post for your reading delight today as I bring the paper by Miller and colleagues [1] to your attention suggesting that: "Early intervention targeting language and motor skills may improve later achievement in this population."

'This population' referred to a small cohort (N=26) of children diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who were examined "at the approximate ages of two, four, and ten" years with regards to their academic achievement and the variables that might be important to 'successful' achievements.

Including some familiar names when it comes to the concept of 'outcome' in relation to autism ('optimal outcome' that is), researchers determined a few potentially important relationships from their collected data: "Preschool verbal abilities significantly predicted school-age reading comprehension" and "early motor functioning predicted later math skills."

I'm not entirely surprised that infancy verbal (talking) abilities might play a role in later reading comprehension but I was rather more intrigued by the observation potentially linking motor skills to later maths abilities. Yes, I get that children learn to count on their fingers (and toes) and no doubt this and other scenarios might influence the connection between the two, but it strikes me that this connection requires quite a bit more study [2]. Indeed, welcoming the idea that motor skills are an important issue with regards to autism (see here) and that maths ability is 'as varied as the label of autism is itself' (see here) the idea that the archetypal all-rounder that is the occupational therapist (OT) might have a key role here is rather interesting (see here).

I'm also minded to suggest that a certain sport/discipline that I'm particularly fond of on this blog (the martial arts) might have some rather far-reaching 'mathematical' effects if one considers it's application to autism and motor functioning...

To close, Marvel are going full-strength with their next Wolverine film instalment titled 'Logan'...

----------

[1] Miller LE. et al. Preschool predictors of school-age academic achievement in autism spectrum disorder. Clin Neuropsychol. 2016 Oct 5:1-22.

[2] Pitchford NJ. et al. Fine Motor Skills Predict Maths Ability Better than They Predict Reading Ability in the Early Primary School Years. Front Psychol. 2016 May 30;7:783.

----------

ResearchBlogging.org Miller LE, Burke JD, Troyb E, Knoch K, Herlihy LE, & Fein DA (2016). Preschool predictors of school-age academic achievement in autism spectrum disorder. The Clinical neuropsychologist, 1-22 PMID: 27705180

Saturday, 13 June 2015

Autism, higher education and employment: what happens long-term?

Note: I wish I knew who to attribute this fantastic picture to.
I want to draw your attention to the paper by Julie Lounds Taylor and colleagues [1] in today's post and some slightly worrying findings based on their longitudinal investigation of postsecondary (higher) education and employment experiences for a group of 73 adults diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum.

To quote: "Although two-thirds of adults with autism spectrum disorder participated in competitive employment/postsecondary education during the study, fewer than 25% maintained these activities over the study period."

I was interested in this specific sentence given some recent discussions with colleagues about how quite a lot of the conversations about employment and/or higher education access for those on the autism spectrum seemed to be missing some important elements including: (a) 'what factors successfully 'keep' a person in employment/education?' and (b) 'does long-term participation in education/employment really improve quality of life for everyone on the autism spectrum?'

Before anyone gets any ideas about me being somehow opposed to employment and higher education access for anyone and everyone who wants it, I'm not. As per some previous ramblings on this topic, I do think there are plenty of ways that the jobs market for example, can be opened up for those on the autism spectrum (see here) and society is poorer by not recognising the talents available. What I am slightly concerned about is quite a typical feature for autism research and practice with some of the sweeping generalisations that are often made that there is some sort of one-size-fits-all 'life plan' for everyone on the autism spectrum. There isn't and when it comes to jobs and education, there certainly isn't [2].

Appreciating that discussions about education and employment are quite prevalent in the research literature these days, I would very much like to see quite a bit more science done on the various reasons why higher education and/or employment in their current form might not necessarily be right for everyone on the autism spectrum and what can be done about it. Things like anxiety - which can be extremely disabling for some on the autism spectrum - affecting a person's ability to hold down a job for example, and the additional pressures that it can result in for both employees and employers. In these times of Governments striving for full employment, compassion for those not able to hold employment (including on the topic of benefits sanctions) should be extended at the same time as striving for improvements in offering opportunities. Drawing also on the idea that higher education might invoke certain stresses and strains that may uniquely affect some on the autism spectrum (see here) I'd like to see more investigations on what can be done to mitigate such issues and improve the learning experience for those on the spectrum who choose this particular direction.

"Women were considerably less likely than men to maintain employment/postsecondary education over time." This is another worrying finding reported by Taylor et al reiterating other work coming to similar conclusions [3]. I don't yet have any specific ideas why men with autism were more likely to hold down employment/education compared with women with autism but it strikes me that some further investigation should be quickly forthcoming.

To reiterate, I am by no means opposed to increasing access / participation in higher education and employment for those on the autism spectrum; society owes all it's citizens equal rights and importantly justice (see attached picture). What I do have a problem with is when equality assumes 'one-size-fits-all' and fails to understand the individual needs, wants and wishes of individuals [4]. This also includes the further requirement to debunk the idea that "natural science, engineering and IT" are the only educational / occupational courses 'right' for people on the autism spectrum [5].

----------

[1] Taylor JL. et al. Longitudinal patterns of employment and postsecondary education for adults with autism and average-range IQ. Autism. 2015 May 27. pii: 1362361315585643.

[2] Marshall D. & Goodall C. The Right to Appropriate and Meaningful Education for Children with ASD. JADD. 2015. June 3.

[3] Holwerda A. et al. Predictors of sustainable work participation of young adults with developmental disorders. Res Dev Disabil. 2013 Sep;34(9):2753-63.

[4] Griffith GM. et al. 'I just don't fit anywhere': support experiences and future support needs of individuals with Asperger syndrome in middle adulthood. Autism. 2012 Sep;16(5):532-46.

[5] Lorenz T. & Heinitz K. Aspergers--different, not less: occupational strengths and job interests of individuals with Asperger's Syndrome. PLoS One. 2014 Jun 20;9(6):e100358.

----------

ResearchBlogging.org Taylor JL, Henninger NA, & Mailick MR (2015). Longitudinal patterns of employment and postsecondary education for adults with autism and average-range IQ. Autism : the international journal of research and practice PMID: 26019306

Monday, 10 February 2014

Optimal outcome (and autism) by any other name

In my annual review of all things autism research covered on this blog, the accolade of paper of the year for 2013 went to [drum roll maestro]... that optimal outcome paper by Deborah Fein and colleagues* (see here and here for more information). Detailing the experiences of well-defined group of children previously diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who no longer met the diagnostic criteria, the notions that (a) there may be differences in the developmental trajectories of children on the autism spectrum (a shocker, I know), and (b) at least one of those trajectories might include moving out of the autism spectrum, was nothing short of ground-breaking.
The daily ship jam @ Wikipedia 

Whilst discussions still continue about the Fein findings and indeed, whether for example, moving outside of the diagnostic domains of an autism diagnosis actually translates as a better shot at real-world issues such as gaining meaningful (and financially rewarding) employment or living an independent life relatively free of medication or ill-health, the notion of optimal outcomes really stoked the autism research fire. The paper by Deborah Anderson and colleagues** (including Cathy Lord on the authorship list) treads in similar footsteps with their suggestion that: "some cognitively able children with ASD who participate in early intervention have very positive outcomes". The paper capitalising on the question of what variables and factors might influence positive outcomes and indeed, optimal outcome. I will also direct you to some views on this paper over at the SFARI blog too.

As I do so many times on this blog, I have to thank Natasa from providing the full-text version of the Anderson paper for discussion here. Reading through the Anderson paper, I dare say we might have a contender for the paper of the year 2014 as per their study which spanned 17 years, prospectively following a group of children diagnosed with autism. Just before I go on I should point out that I think we've already seen earlier data from the Anderson group on this cohort as per this 2007 publication*** and this 2009 publication**** (see here for open-access).

A few details from their latest:

  • From a starting sample number of some 213 children initially referred for "possible autism" or with "non-ASD developmental delays" all under 37 months of age, 142 now young adults were in contact with researchers at 19 years of age including 85 youths who were diagnosed with ASD in early childhood.
  • An important quote: "A battery of diagnostic and psychometric instruments was administered in person when children were 2, 3, 5... 9 and 19 years, free of charge". This battery included the ADI-R, the ADOS (PL-ADOS), the Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL), VABS and quite a bit more. That and the fact that logs were kept noting things like medication and "educational and intervention treatments" among participants.
  • Based on the division of participants diagnosed with autism into two groups as a function of (verbal) IQ at aged 19 (a) IQ less than 70 denoting 'Cognitively less able' (n=53) and (b) IQ equal or more than 70 ('Cognitively able' n=32), the authors reported that: "Intellectual disability at 19 was accurately predicted by age 2 about 85% of the time from IQ scores alone". Further that: "lower cognitive and adaptive abilities, along with more ASD-related symptoms at 2, predict membership in the VIQ <70 group [the 'Cognitively less able' group] 17 years later". That cognitive abilities may be predictive of future outcome is something which was also touched upon in the review paper by Magiati and colleagues*****.
  • When it came to those members of the 'Cognitively able' group', well: "Of the 32 VIQ ≥70 youths, eight no longer retained a clinical diagnosis of ASD at age 19". These 'optimal outcomers' were described as a 'Very Positive Outcome' (VPO) group. Indeed, it also seems that alongside 'losing' their diagnosis of autism, this VPO group also seemed not to be affected by issues such as depression: "Twenty-nine percent (n=7) of the VIQ ≥70-ASD youths had scores suggesting possible depression while none of the VPO youths had elevated scores" and also did not present with clinically elevated scores in areas of irritability or hyperactivity neither.
  • Perhaps more importantly than just scores and test results, the authors note that: "There was a strong trend toward higher rates of employment among VPO youths" added to their increased rates of independent living (away from the family home). Oh and no reports of having to take psychotropic medications. That being said the authors note that even when VPO was not 'achieved' at least some of the 'Cognitively able' group were: "doing very well in several areas" with many being "quite independent within their social contexts".

There is the promise of more data to come from this group insofar as the "stability of very positive outcomes", which with all the talk about diagnostic stability (see here) is an interesting prospect. What we can take from the current data from Anderson is that similar to the Fein results and other recent results, there may be multiple trajectories in autism when looked at longitudinally, and for some at least, a diagnosis of autism is not necessarily a lifelong event. I keep going on about it, but surely this must be another string to the bow for the concept of the autisms?

What else would I like to see from the Anderson data in publications to come? Well, maybe a few more details about the types of interventions that were reported over the course of children growing up might be a good place to start over above just "early treatment.. defined as at least 20 hr (once per week parent-training for 6 months)" in relation to the VPO group. At least then we'd be able to gauge what their relative contribution might or might not have been to youth outcome. Oh and I'm not just talking about educational and behavioural intervention either (see the recent paper by RogerAkins and colleagues***** which was covered in a recent post). I'd also like to know whether comorbidity played it's part in terms of outcome; y'know whether the onset of epilepsy or seizure disorder for example, affected later presentation.

These and lots of other questions which I'm hoping we'll see answered (or at least discussed) in future papers from this group. Watch this space...

I'll leave you with some Bob Marley and Stir it up.

----------

* Fein D. et al. Optimal outcome in individuals with a history of autism. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2013 Feb;54(2):195-205.

** Anderson DK. et al. Predicting young adult outcome among more and less cognitively able individuals with autism spectrum disorders. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2013 Dec 9. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12178.

*** Anderson DK. et al. Patterns of growth in verbal abilities among children with autism spectrum disorder. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2007 Aug;75(4):594-604.

**** Anderson DK. et al. Patterns of growth in adaptive social abilities among children with autism spectrum disorders. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2009 Oct;37(7):1019-34.

***** Magiati I. et al. Cognitive, language, social and behavioural outcomes in adults with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review of longitudinal follow-up studies in adulthood. Clinical Psych Rev. 2014; 34: 73-86.

****** Akins RS. et al. Utilization Patterns of Conventional and Complementary/Alternative Treatments in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders and Developmental Disabilities in a Population-Based Study. J Dev Behav Ped. 2014; 35: 1-10.

----------

ResearchBlogging.org Anderson DK, Liang JW, & Lord C (2013). Predicting young adult outcome among more and less cognitively able individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines PMID: 24313878

Wednesday, 10 October 2012

I am not condoning violence...

Mr Bruce Lee @ Wikipedia 
Name calling, spreading rumours, excluding from social groups, hitting, kicking and taking belongings. Bullying (definition courtesy of the UK National Autistic Society) covers quite a lot of ground.

I don't actually know if I had a bully or not at school. I mean, there was this one kid at school who always seemed to have it in for me until that is, one day I snapped (yes, we English are not all watercress sandwiches and afternoon tea) after which the kid in question didn't tend to come near me again. I never actually thought however that this kid was a bully per se; just someone who I didn't seem to get along with.

That was then. Nowadays the media is awash with news about cyber-bullying and the various new fangled ways that some kids use / have used to cause misery to other kids (albeit with questions about prevalence). I have to say that I'm kinda glad that I'm not a teenager in the Internet or cameraphone age after reading all this.

In this post I want to talk about the paper by Paul Sterzing and colleagues* reporting on the experiences of school year bullying (and bullying perpetration) in teens with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). On purpose I've left it a while before I get to this paper in order to let the dust settle around this quite emotive topic before I stuck my oar in with this quite long post.

Needless to say that this study has from the initial press release and author profile created quite a few column inches as per headlines like this one: School bullies prey on children with autism and this one: Why autistic kids make easy targets for school bullies no doubt alongside hitting some really raw nerves for many people. I tread carefully.

A quick summary first:

  • This was a survey study which asked parents (N=920) (and teachers) of teens with an autism spectrum disorder about the bullying (both victim and perpetrator) experiences of their children.
  • Coming up to almost half of all teens with autism were reported to be the victims of bullying (46%) whilst 15% were perpetrators of bullying and about 10% combined bullying victims and perpetrators.
  • Various factors correlated with bullying victim status including lower social skills, some level of conversational ability and a comorbid ADHD diagnosis. Being in mainstream education was also mentioned as a correlate.
  • On the other hand, the presence of ADHD was also associated with being a bullying perpetrator alongside having some kind of friendship base.

This is not the first time that bullying has been studied with autism in mind. This paper from van Roekel and colleagues** (open-access) looked at bullying specifically within the special education school system, again reporting a figure of 46% on the prevalence of bullying and victimisation. Indeed not dissimilar from the findings from a recent UK report on the school experience and autism (see here).

I was also interested in the findings reported by Montes & Halterman*** on the influence of ADHD comorbidity, where dual presentation (autism & ADHD) seemed to confer the greatest risk for bullying behaviours. Not a million miles away from the Sterzing conclusions. As an aside, I do also wonder whether the paper by Susan Dickerson Mayes and colleagues**** on suicide ideation and attempts in cases of autism might also reflect a potential effect from bullying in some extreme cases.

I'm not an expert on bullying but I might add a few points potentially tied into these findings. Stick with me on this one.

Although there are probably lots of reason for bullying behaviour, I've always believed that, from the bully's point of view, it all eventually comes down to exerting power over another person/s. It's a two-stage process so please hear me out: (i) a bully, whether because of issues in their own life, at home, at school, at anywhere, either has lost some degree of 'power' over their own life and wants to recoup it over others perceived as less powerful, or in some cases, has an insatiable desire for power not readily satisfied by their current life. That's how (I think) it starts, accepting that other factors such as prejudice, jealousy, socio-economic status (see here) and popularity among peers also might carry influence. The second stage (ii) is all about maintaining a bullying control over someone; something where the more social side of things comes into play. Peer groups based on that bullying power, some degree of showing off to those peers and the notion of 'getting away with it' all contribute to keeping the cycle of bullying going.

Then there is the 'victim' perspective. As per the discussion above, victims generally have to be perceived by bullies as someone who is less powerful than them. This could take the form of being less physically powerful than the bully as per this study by Bejerot and colleagues***** on how poor performance in physical education classes might be a risk factor for being bullied or this study by Wildhaber and colleagues****** discussing asthma-related bullying. It could also be someone who 'stands out' from the crowd as discussed in this study by Kukaswadia and colleagues******* on obesity being a determinant of bullying. As per this editorial, "the symptoms of the disorder are the exact reasons that make young people with autism vulnerable". With that in mind, have a think about the suggestion of hyper vs. hypo-theory of mind (see here) with bullying and autism in mind.

Without trying to cherry-pick the evidence, other research on some of the hows and whys of bullying, victims and their behaviour (as per studies like this one and this one and this one) to some degree correlate with my view including this very interesting piece from the American Psychological Association.

I know some people might read all this psycho-babble and ask questions like 'why can't society be kinder?' and 'who would pick on a child with autism?'. I too ask those questions. The simple fact however is that children, like adults, whether with or without autism or other labels, are complicated and the way society like schools are set-up combined with that human nature means that bullying is probably always going to be present to some degree. Where there is social structure, there's always going to be people who want to be top dog. Where there are differences, there will probably always be some degree of prejudice. These aren't nice thoughts, but unfortunately it is current reality.

But that's not to say that something can't be done to moderate those bully and victim characteristics. Quite a few people seem to be talking about bullying prevention and interference strategies and I believe that when they work, they can work very well. So little things like bullying victims being able to tell someone about their experiences, through to proactive processes and policies at a school and even at a societal level designed to educate and stop would-be bullies from starting their 'give me your dinner money' ways. There are some obvious issues with some of these suggestions when applied to some cases of autism and the characteristic presentation of the condition but I don't really have the space in this post to go into specifics now.

If you're still reading this, I would perhaps also offer another tool in the anti-bullying arsenal: self-defence skills. As per the title of this post, I am not condoning violence in any way, shape or form by saying this and realise that bullying covers so much more than just physical action. But let's face it, with all the will in the world and support from parents, schools, whoever, there are always going to be situations where a child is on their own and potentially faced with a bully or bullies. Particularly when bullying turns from words and phrases to 'sticks and stones' is where perhaps some degree of self-defence might come in handy. Note the stress on defence before any charges of incitement to violence are levelled at me. And I'm not the only one suggesting this by the way.

Searching the literature on the use of martial arts / self-defence for people with autism, there are some interesting pieces of research to note. This poster presentation by Palermo and colleagues******** talks about how karate is not only a skill that can be taught to children with autism, but also a skill which might (in some cases) actually have some value-added benefits outside of just being able to 'take care of yourself'. Indeed other studies, whilst limited in quantity, have indicated similar potential gains from taking up martial arts as per this study by Bahrami and colleagues*********. If one takes the martial arts path to its natural progression in terms of the mental and physical discipline required and related concepts like mindfulness, you can perhaps see other potential benefits which might also accompany the various moves outside of just increasing self-confidence and physical empowerment.

I'll reiterate that I'm not suggesting that every child with autism trains up to be some kind of Keanu Reeves "I know Kung-Fu" warrior. And once again I am totally understanding of the voices of 'why would someone bully a kid with autism?' sentiments and the need to try and alter attitudes whether through education or indeed legislation. The trouble is that we live in a world where kids, some kids, can be very cruel and whether through ignorance or other factors, bullying is pretty much always going to be on the periphery of growing up just as it can, and often does, carry forward to the adult workplace. Having autism it seems, does not confer immunity to that premise. With all that in mind, does taking a wide ranging approach to managing bullying including an element of teaching self-defence really sound so un-PC?

---------

* Sterzing PR. et al. Bullying involvement and autism spectrum disorders: prevalence and correlates of bullying involvement among adolescents with an autism spectrum disorder. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. September 2012.

** van Roekel E. et al. Bullying among adolescents with autism spectrum disorders: prevalence and perception. JADD. 2010; 40: 63-73.

*** Montes G. & Halterman JS. Bullying among children with autism and the influence of comorbidity with ADHD: a population-based study. Ambulatory Pediatrics. 2007; 7: 253-257.

**** Dickerson Mayes S. et al. Suicide ideation and attempts in children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2013; 7: 109-119.

***** Bejerot S. et al. Poor performance in physical education - a risk factor for bully victimization. A case-control study. Acta Paediatrica. 2011; 100: 413-419.

****** Wildhaber J. et al. Global impact of asthma on children and adolescents' daily lives: the room to breathe survey. Pediatric Pulmonology. 2012; 47: 346-357.

******* Kukaswadia A. et al. Obesity as a determinant of two forms of bullying in Ontario youth: a short report. Obesity Facts. 2011; 4: 469-472.

******** Palermo MT. et al. Karate and autism spectrum disorders: sports as treatment for social cognition deficits. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2008; 93: ps540.

********* Bahrami F. et al. Kata techniques training consistently decreases stereotypy in children with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2012; 33: 1183-1193.

----------
ResearchBlogging.org Sterzing PR, Shattuck PT, Narendorf SC, Wagner M, & Cooper BP (2012). Bullying Involvement and Autism Spectrum Disorders: Prevalence and Correlates of Bullying Involvement Among Adolescents With an Autism Spectrum Disorder. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine, 1-7 PMID: 22945284