This article explores the comorbid conditions often seen in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), focusing on ADHD, anxiety, and depression. ADHD co-occurs with autism in 30-61% of cases, sharing traits like inattention and hyperactivity, though treatment strategies differ. Anxiety, affecting up to 84% of autistic individuals, includes generalized anxiety and OCD, complicating diagnosis due to overlapping symptoms. Depression, affecting 26% of autistic individuals, arises from social isolation and chronic stress, presenting with symptoms like low mood and sleep disturbances. The article emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive approach to treatment, addressing both autism and its comorbid conditions for improved quality of life.

This article explores Executive Functioning Deficits and Sensory Processing Issues in autism, providing historical context and detailed descriptions of each concept. Executive Functioning (EF) deficits involve challenges with cognitive processes such as working memory, cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control, affecting planning and problem-solving. Sensory Processing Issues include atypical responses to sensory stimuli, leading to hyperreactivity or hyporeactivity. The article highlights the complex interplay between these two aspects, noting that sensory overload can impair EF, and integrated support strategies can improve quality of life for autistic individuals. It advocates for individualized interventions that address both EF and sensory challenges to foster a more supportive environment.

This article explores six behavioural and psychological concepts related to autism: echolalia, stimming, hyperfocus, special interests, autistic masking, and alexithymia. Echolalia involves repeating words or phrases, serving as communication or self-regulation. Stimming, or self-stimulatory behaviour, helps manage sensory input and emotions. Hyperfocus allows deep concentration on tasks, often linked to special interests, which provide joy and expertise but can dominate time. Autistic masking involves suppressing natural behaviours to fit in, leading to stress and burnout. Alexithymia is the difficulty in identifying and describing emotions, affecting interpersonal relationships. These concepts are interconnected, highlighting the unique experiences of autistic individuals. The article advocates for understanding and accepting these behaviours as intrinsic to the autistic experience.

The article explores various cognitive and empathy theories related to autism, such as Theory of Mind (ToM), mind-blindness, and the double empathy problem. It delves into the distinctions between cognitive and affective empathy, and measures like the Empathy Quotient (EQ) and Systemising Quotient (SQ). The empathising-systemising (E-S) theory and the extreme male brain (EMB) theory are also discussed. The article emphasizes that while traditional theories like mind-blindness suggest deficits in autistic individuals, newer concepts like the double empathy problem highlight mutual communication challenges between autistic and non-autistic people. It argues for a more inclusive understanding of autism, recognizing diverse cognitive profiles and empathy experiences.

The DSM-5’s consolidation of Asperger’s Syndrome with other autism spectrum disorders into a single category of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) has been highly controversial. Critics argue this change overlooks important distinctions and specific needs of individuals with Asperger’s Syndrome. Dr. Lorna Wing, a prominent British psychiatrist, and several contemporary researchers, including Dr. Catherine Lord, James McPartland, and Fred Volkmar, have raised concerns. They emphasize that the unique cognitive, social, and behavioural profiles of those with Asperger’s warrant separate classifications to ensure appropriate support and interventions. Organizations like Autism Speaks also highlight potential difficulties in service access under the broader ASD category. This debate underscores the necessity for ongoing refinement and discussion in the field of developmental disorders.

Asperger’s Syndrome, described by Dr. Hans Asperger in 1944, is characterized by normal to high intelligence and strong language skills but significant social challenges. The DSM-IV recognized it as distinct from other autism spectrum disorders. However, the DSM-5 in 2013 merged Asperger’s into Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), citing shared characteristics. Critics argue this overlooks unique cognitive profiles, language development, and social interaction patterns specific to Asperger’s, necessitating tailored educational and behavioural interventions. Maintaining Asperger’s as a separate classification ensures individuals receive appropriate, specialized support, improving their outcomes.

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) has undergone significant reclassification over time. Historically, it was divided into subtypes including Infantile Autism, Asperger’s Syndrome, Pervasive Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS), Childhood Disintegrative Disorder (CDD), and Rett Syndrome. These subtypes were recognized based on varying social, communicative, and behavioural challenges. In 2013, the DSM-5 unified these categories under a single diagnosis of ASD, reflecting a spectrum of symptoms with varying severity. This modern classification emphasizes persistent social communication deficits and restricted, repetitive behaviours, with levels indicating the required support. This shift enhances diagnostic consistency and personalized support for individuals with autism.

The DSM-5, published by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013, is an essential tool for diagnosing mental disorders, reflecting decades of evolving research since its first edition in 1952. The manual is divided into three sections: an introduction, detailed diagnostic criteria across 20 chapters, and emerging measures and models. Despite its utility, the DSM-5 has faced criticism for reducing diagnostic categories, medicalizing normal behaviours, potential pharmaceutical influence, and a lack of transparency in its revision process. Used globally, often alongside the WHO’s ICD, the DSM-5 remains a crucial yet controversial framework in mental health diagnostics.