Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 14

message: Lovely, the article was FAR'd.  OK, the person who submitted it set up the files all wrong, so I'll go about correcting and archiving them now.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article review 

message: Here is a proposed comorbid section in my sandbox. I deleted a couple of sentences from the article which were about autism and PDD but not specific to AS.  Is this OK to go ?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bedtime here; if anyone else concurs, go ahead and pop that in from my sandbox.  On the table I generated from the four sets of diagnostic criteria from Mattila, also in my sandbox, I did only partial info in the hopes it won't violate copyright.  What do you all think?  It helps me see the differences (and it looks like Szatmari is talking about a whole 'nother condition). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Does the info about psychosocial factors (peer victimization) go in comorbids, prognosis, or what?  Does the info about medical anamolies go in comorbids or diagnosis?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Safest to leave it as comorbid - as soon as you get either backwards into causation or forwards into prognosis, disputes start about what is related to what and how strong the evidence is for causation etc.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll wait a bit to see if there is other input before adding this to the article.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comorbidities 

message: I have a bad habit of working from the bottom up, because the text at the top is harder to work on :-)  In the first paragraph of Cultural aspects, the first sentence is original opinion, not supported by the source (which is a demonstrably inaccurate source anyway, since the author misstates the AS diagnostic criteria), and the second part of the paragraph delves into personality type theory, which is straying from a tight focus on the topic at hand.  Can we lose that paragraph or find a way to rephrase and cite the first sentence to a reliable source (which could also be included in the second sub-section, eliminating the need for subsectioning and resulting in a cleaner table of contents per no. 2 ?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, we already have a reliable source for reworking the first sentence at  .  Can we re-do that sentence and merge it into one Cultural aspects section, losing the sub-section and the personality types?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural aspects 

message: See WP:MEDMOS, this article is missing a section on Prevention or Screening.  And before editors whack me with you can't prevent, pls review how I handled this section in Tourette syndrome (screen for comorbids, etc.) Are there reliable screening instruments for AS?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to go oblique and call it "Early Intervention"? Because although you cannot prevent or screen, you can significantly alter the prognosis by early identification and intervention. Surely that is more appropriate to context, and equivalent? --Zeraeph 16:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That might generate conflict in the article; there was extended debate in the autism article rewrite as it seems there isn't good evidence backing the notion that early intervention helps. Do you object to calling it screening, and working in some text about early intervention?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem with screening (and I would see this as applying to TS to the same extent) is that it DOES imply a view to prevention, rather than identifying an immutable reality. I am not saying that as something to be debated, but rather something to be honestly sat back and thought about...I am not even sure "early intervention" is right, maybe just "intervention" or "other"? --Zeraeph 17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Allright, will wait and see what others think.  Maybe as we start typing up that text, a solution will emerge.  There's text in the reviews that needs to go somewhere.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Research on infants points to early differences in reflexes, which may be able to serve as an "early detector" of AS and autism.Teitelbaum O, Benton T, Shah PK, et al. "Eshkol-Wachman movement notation in diagnosis: the early detection of Asperger's syndrome." Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 10 August;101(32):11909–14. Epub 2004 28 July.  Full text.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing section, Screening 

message: I don't understand why editors here have accepted a Section heading called "Treatment" for a condition that doesn't always need to be "treated"; in TS, I opted for the alternate section heading of "Management", recognizing that not everyone wants or needs "treatment", but may need to "manage" tics or life with tics.  Can we change the section heading to Management, per WP:MEDMOS option?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's a REALLY good idea...and SO OBVIOUS! :o) --Zeraeph 16:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I suggested it during the last FAR and got nowhere :-)  I just typed up a massive and complicated analysis of the Mattila article and the four sets of diagnostic criteria and lost it all in edit conflict.  Argh. It will take some motivation for me to type all of that again; maybe I'll work in my sandbox.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OW!! Maybe we can use the "editor at work" template on talk here as a special case? :o)--Zeraeph 17:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that will help; it's my computer.  Don't know why I lose stuff even when I preview it.  Argh. It was a ton of typing. I'll do it again later.   SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer treatment as it makes it sound a bit more pro-active than management; regardless of milder/higher functioning end people, the fact remains that there are people who are impaired at the bottom end, and the treatments which work are behavioural treatments targeted at deficits. management to me suggests status quo whereas treatment is about improving. If no treatment is necessary in any given condition then it is not needed. That's just my take on it - cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose the fundamental difference with Tourette's is that impairment in functioning is not part of the diagnostic criteria, and most need no treatment.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment 

message: As I suggested yesterday, I have run out of time that I can put into this article for the moment... I will be leaving on a trip tomorrow, and have a number of errands and preparations to make before I go, and things to tend to when I get back. I believe that Zeraeph is in a similar situation, with house guests requiring attention, as well as some less pleasant schedule demands over the next few days. Though sketchy on the details, I believe that CC has some near term restrictions on his time as well. There have also been concerns that attempts to reach consensus have been more effective at reducing productivity than they have at creating unity. A couple of days ago, for example, we spent so much time disputing on the talk page that very little else got done, a scenario where everyone loses. So, both because we have to take a break, and because it's probably the most efficient approach, our participation in the editing of this page will be negligible for a little while. You may go ahead and do as you see fit, without worrying about us.
 
This also ends any need for mediation, I'll ask CC to verify that personally, since he was the one who requested it. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, i no longer feel mediation is needed. CeilingCrash 21:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to be pretty busy as well over the next month, but will have sporadic openings where I'll try to do as much as I can.  For example, I'd like to finish up comorbids, finish up Diagnosis (which I've started in my sandbox) and work on Management and other straightforward things as available in the new reviews.  It strikes me that the lead is the most contentious area, so it's best left til we're all available to iron it out.  Is it OK if I proceed with the other areas, as long as I develop text in my sandbox and give folks a few days to check it out?  Are you Ok with comorbids so far, and the other section heading changes I've proposed above ?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about our viewpoints. I'm in the process of packing, and I don't think the others are even as available as I am. You're free to change the lead, or anything else, however you wish. As you've noted, we work at a measured and deliberate pace, making our work habits, through no fault of anyone, difficult to mesh with yours. So, have at it, without hesitation, there's no risk of stepping on our toes, because they will be elsewhere. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely concur, of course, being me, I will be popping in to "watchdog" a few articles I usually do, but I just don't have the kind of time it takes to give this article the necessary attention (after all, I only usually "watchdog" it for vandalism and the lunatic fringe, which REALLY isn't called for at present). --Zeraeph 22:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know enough about opinions on details of every edit to be able to comment; in fact, I think it's safe to say that nobody knows, because we have not reviewed every edit. Personally, I've been extremely happy with some of the text, less so with other. But you have no need whatsoever to worry about reversion. If we come back later and agree that any improvement can be made, we will address it through our usual, gradual, consensus-driven polishing process. Poindexter Propellerhead 23:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A break

message: Tony, thanks for the excellent copyedit of the History section.  Responding:
*I'm not concerned about the over-reliance on "What'sSpecial"; there was nothing there that wasn't duplicated in bits and pieces in numerous other sources, and none of it seems controversial.  That article has the advantage that the full text is available online.
*I was intentionally vague here, and I'm not sure how to resolve this.  I've found a number of sources saying AS was added to ICD in 1992, and others saying 1993.  Maybe someone can resolve (I see I used the 92 date later in the text).
*You changed:
** "Kannerian autism", characterized by significant cognitive and communicative deficiencies, including delays in language development or complete lack of language. (Kanner, L (1943). "Autistic Disturbances of Affective Contact". Nervous Child, 2;217–250.) ... to:
**  characterized by significant cognitive and communicative deficiencies, including delays in language development or a complete absence of the capacity for language.
:*I don't have that source, and I'm not certain if that's a change in meaning; can someone else please check and correct ?
Better would be:  "Kannerian autism", characterized by significant cognitive and communicative deficiencies, including delayed or absent language development. (Kanner, L (1943). "Autistic Disturbances of Affective Contact". Nervous Child, 2;217–250.)
cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * The source says, "Like autism, it is considered to be a developmental condition of early onset. But unlike Kanner-type autism, there is no history of language delay or general developmental delay."  I'm not sure if there's a change in meaning there; can someone review ?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Sandy. Best to be safe, I guess, but it is a problem when the sources are unsatisfactorily vague. What does "general" development mean? Perhaps the wider context of that article clarifies this. I think I went back to the DSCM IV text, subconsciously. I do see WP as being able to exercise a role in providing clarity to a subject by clarifying fuzzy prose in the sources it draws on, but we do, of course, need to be confident that we're not misinterpreting the "known" facts. Tony 15:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you; since Cas is a practicing professional, he should be able to clear up those remaining items.  Hello, Casliber :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with Tony - cognitive is a better fit than general (though the underlying concept is vague, as are all definitions of "normal"..) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting 

message: I'm working next on Prognosis in my sandbox; there is a lot of text to incorporate.  I've downloaded the full Coplan study, and it simply is not about Asperger's.  Considering the study limitations and that the paper is more about a predictive model than outcome in AS per se, I'm not sure if any of it is relevant. Coplan states that larger studies are needed to validate the model, so it also suffers from recentism.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review Prognosis in my sandbox; I worked in the Baron-Cohen ASQ statements, as well as everything I found in both the Baskin and McPartland reviews.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prognosis

message: Does :Image:Autismbrain.jpg used in Autism also apply to AS?  Can we use it?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair Use issues raised on the FAR; we need to look at these, and may need to bring back the brain image. I don't really speak Fair Use, but it did appear the Asperger images weren't in the clear, which is why I moved in the brain and risperdal images, which have no problems.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: The Baskin (2006) review mentions Alexithymia and provides context and leads to other research.  I've incorporated everything from Baskin, the other articles, and our article on alexithymia in a rewrite in my sandbox.  I suggest:
# The extra detail in Asperger syndrome about who named it, discovered it, when etc. is too much detail for this article; that sort of detail is more appropriately explored in the alexithymia article, so I've left it out.
# Alexithymia is not identified as a core characteristic of AS; mediating factors and causality are not clear, so the text belongs more correctly in Comorbids.
# The statement that 85% of people with ASDs have alexithymia doesn't belong in an article about AS, but could find a home in the autism spectrum article.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit of a quandary as Alexithymia isn't  a condition like depression, anxiety as such but sits in a bit of a twilight zone as an observed (or reported) characteristic. I'd have trouble with it in comorbidities and lean slightly toward characteristics though recognize the problem....I'm not too fussed reallycheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it can be placed in the characteristics section. I'm happy with either placement.Soulgany101 22:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. If it is going to be left in the characteristics section it should be moved out of the 'social differences' heading as this is a poor category in which to place a predominately psychological issue. Maybe 'Other differences'? Soulgany101 00:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll park the text in Other for now, and we can rework those kinds of details in the final runthrough.  (Casliber, I left a few things for you to resolve from Tony's copyedit; see the Copyediting section a few sections up.)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexithymia 

message: I'm plodding forward on Treatment in my Sandbox; not sure yet how to deal with ABA and would love some help from Eubulides.  I don't anticipate a problem with Causes, except that I don't have the knowledge/background to deal with neuroanatomical findings, brain imaging, etcetera, and I'm hoping either Cas, Tim or Eubulides will write that piece (there's ample info in all of the reviews, but it's over my head).  I'm really hoping Eubulides will rework Epidemiology, as that's his thing (and AQ is a screening instrument, doesn't belong in Epidemiology).  Looking ahead, Classification shouldn't be hard, but every time I glance at Characteristics, I find it daunting.  Too much of what is there isn't well sourced (too much Attwood and others), and I'm a little concerned about how to best tackle that section.  Ideas ?  I hope no one is concerned yet about uneven wikilinking; I'd much rather review for wikilinking and possible redundant info between sections when we're really really almost done and in the final ce phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A look ahead 

message: In my sandbox; good enough to move in to the article, knowing that we may need to smooth things over in the end???  Gettin' tired SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I wanted to highlight why meds are controversial - necessary at times but tricky too. trying to think of a word between frequent and uncommon....Otherwise very well done - looks greatcheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on citing that unless someone else gets to it first; that's common info, so it shouldn't be hard.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'm confused; I don't know what those  thingies are that you added.  Help?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: d'OH (slaps forehead) - i meant  tags...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes more sense; I'll look for citations :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found some citations, but without free journal access, I can't be certain they're the best; would you mind having another look?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Knowing who they are and where they're published I'm satisfied. They are unlikely to be challenged and there would be alot of others to back them up. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ugh.  That level of problem is irritating in a journal report.  I doubt that I would be successful in citing it with the resources I have, so if no one else can cite it, we'd best just delete it.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Because no two children with AS are alike, intervention is tailored to the individual needs of the child based on multidisciplinary assessment. - we could lose the first clause - we know what it means but it is fairly self-evident and adds little - rather just say that "treatment is customised to address a child's particular deficits."  or something similar and leave it at that. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the wording and added a citation. Eubulides 04:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment (sandbox) 

message: I've started on Causes.  What I'm finding as I go through out current text is that very little of the text and studies there are specific to AS; most of it is general to autism spectrum disorders, so is in the wrong article, while AS per se is neglected.  I'm going back to the peer-reviewed journal articles and starting over, building info specific to AS in my Sandbox.  Thoughts?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm finished with Causes in my sandbox. Will others please go through it with extra care?  It's mostly Greek to me, and I've only regurgitated what the sources say.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good - done a good job treading the line between jargon and clear english without losing meaning (though I'm probably not the best person to call on this aspect). cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tim tweaked it as well, so I went ahead and moved it in.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes 

message: Next I'm going to tackle this piece (because I'm afraid to take on Characteristics just yet, since it needs huge amounts of work).  The question of AS/HFA is mentioned in almost every article I've read, and is significant.  It belongs in Classification, right?   (Somebody start giving Eubulides cookies and milk, beer and pretzels, or scotch and pate, whatever it takes to get him to write Epidemiology :-)) I'm starting to get dizzy, and I hope others are seriously checking and scrutizing my work :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked briefly at this but am short of time right now. You're right, Characteristics is going to need lots of work: I barely scratched the surface by rewriting its 1st paragraph. The question of AS versus HFA does belong in Classification. One idea: read Autism #Classification, particularly near the area where it cites Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism? (). It's not likely you'll be able to grab that book (other than snippets in Google Books) but here's another idea. I recently found a good short intro to this area (which also happens to be free, which is a big plus) in Klin 2006 (). Don't be fooled by its Pubmed summary: the article is in English. Klin makes two good points about HFA vs AS. First, most recent research in this area does not focus on differential diagnosis (i.e., are HFA and AS different?) but rather on what might cause one versus the other (i.e., what predicts the differences in phenotypic presentation?). Second, in practice the typical needs and challenges faced by individuals with these conditions are often best described/analyzed without paying much attention to the specific diagnostic label. Eubulides 04:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just took my first indepth look at Characteristics, and I can't find anything salvageable.  If there is anything in there that is well-sourced to high quality sources and is worthy of saving, can someone point it out?  A bit frustrated, feeling a blank slate will be needed there.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1st sentence, and the 2nd sentence up through the first semicolon should be OK so far as they go, since they're based on Klin 2006. But you're right, most of the section is quite bad, and a good rewrite of that section may well need to lose the 1st two sentences as well. Eubulides 04:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at what I did there to make the other diagnostic schemes work (I have to someone pave the way for Gillberg and Szatmari, which are discussed in Diagnosis).  I've gone line by line through that section, and now that I've read all these journal articles, I'm pretty sure it will be much easier to start from scratch.  If anyone sees any sentence that is well-sourced and of particular value anywhere in Characteristics, please scream.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks so much, Eubulides; I'll work on those items later today, after I get through Tony's latest inline queries—a couple of them pertain to text I cribbed from autism on ABA, so you might want to have a look and resolve those two.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re treating people WRT problems and symptoms rather than labels - actually true for most of psychiatric conditions. It is only for the fact that there is a keenness to pigeonhole these things that we even have this dilemma, but never mind - the essential difference is the whole speech thing - the $64 question is whether there is a demarkation or "zone of rarity" between HFA and AS.....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That diagnostic label thingie is another reason I've kept Roger Freeman's blog around on TS.  When we first dove in to this, the AS/HFA dilemma was mentioned sporadically throughout the article, but never clearly delineated, so left a person unfamiliar with AS in a fog.  We need to write a serious paragraph or two in Classification, and reduce the fog in the lead.  I'll try to pound this out this afternoon if no one else gets to it sooner, but you professional types will have to seriously scrutinize my work :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AS vs. HFA

message: The article is currently at 49KB readable prose, within WP:SIZE guidelines, but we haven't yet tackled the rewrite of Characteristics.  If the readable prose in Characteristics grows a lot, we may need to consider areas for summary.  Based on precedents already set numerous times at WP:FAC and WP:FAR, we should certainly have no problem going up to 55KB on readable prose, but we shouldn't go beyond that.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now at 48KB after I moved around some redundant text and removed text that isn't likely to be cited.  So, the question is whether Epidemioloy can be rewritten to a similar size, and Characteristics can grow no more than 5 KB.  If so, we'll be fine on size.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now at 46 KB after removal of several paragraphs that were undue weight or not specific to AS, so we should end up fine on size after rewrite of Characteristics.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: New lead incorporated, prose size at 52KB; that size will pass FAR or FAC these days, but we should take care that the article doesn't grow.  Hopefully the final ce will reduce size a bit by identifying redundant prose.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size check 

message: Why is EQ SQ theory even mentioned in this article considering this text at our Wiki article:
*The concept of differing types of intelligence in males and females is controversial, and remains largely speculative. Baron-Cohen claims to have based his ideas on a study on a small group of infants he did in 2000, but according to Harvard researchers the study lacked critical controls, has never been replicated and the results were not published in a peer-reviewed journal, and there is a large body of literature which contradicts Baron-Cohen's ideas.  
There is no mention of this theory as relevant in any of the journal reviews, it looks like undue weight to a fringe theory, and Baron-Cohen seems to be the only proponent. I'd like to delete it if others agree.   SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That text focuses on the "extreme male brain" variant of the theory, a variant that flopped. Baron-Cohen has more recently altered and rebadged it as "hyper-systemizing", but so far the new name has been rarely cited by papers outside of Baron-Cohen's own research group. Autism #Neuropsychology gives the theory two sentences, which is perhaps too much; one would do. Giving it zero is not out of the question, though that seems a bit (ahem) extreme. One must be careful to distinguish the sales pitches ("extreme male brain", "hyper-systemizing") from the actual theory. Eubulides 03:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Eubulides; I'll crib something useful from autism then.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EQ SQ 

message: I removed the uncited statement about superior spatial skills per , ,  and the lack of mention of this in the journal reviews.  The "fulfilling careers" hasn't yet been verified anywhere.  The reviews don't mention excellent memory and that isn't cited to peer-reviewed literature.  It doesn't appear that any of that sentence can be reliably sourced.  I can't find any mention of excellent memory, but do find mention of memory impairments (, ).  If someone has those quotes from Attwood, or any idea of the origin of this text, they would give us leads for tracking down peer-reviewed sources.  Enhanced mental focus doesn't jive with the high rate of comorbid ADHD, and I can't find any mention.  If anyone has anything, it would help.  McPartland says:
*Klin and colleagues [25] compared individuals with AS with individuals with HFA on a variety of neuropsychologic measures and determined that individuals with AS exhibited deficits in fine and gross motor skills; visual motor integration; visual-spatial perception; nonverbal concept formation; and visual memory with preserved articulation, verbal output, auditory perception, vocabulary, and verbal memory. Individuals with AS have been reported to exhibit stronger verbal abilities relative to performance abilities, with particular weakness in visual-spatial organization and graphomotor skills [26,27].
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superior spatial skills, memory, focus 

message: I'm trying to understand why the article gives space to one person's hypothesis of a financial motivation for the diagnosis.  Is this undue weight to a fringe theory or is there other literature of substance to back this up?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd lose that info. AS was introduced as a diagnosis at the same time as Rett's and CDD, and with the same level of consensus required. They did literature reviews, data reanalyses, and a field trial. (See .) There is certainly some controversy over AS as a diagnosis, but any extraordinary claim that AS was introduced as a diagnosis "more to stimulate research" requires more substantiation than this. Eubulides 06:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Almst all psych diagnoses have some issue with validity, AS is no worse than many others, agree with preceding. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promoted to spark research 

message: Can this be verified to a reliable source (and is it worth keeping, or is it outdated)?
*Gillberg estimates that 30–50% of all persons with AS are undiagnosed. (Bauer S. Asperger Syndrome. The Source (2000). Retrieved 7 July 2006)
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That number probably comes from Gillberg's 2002 book, which I do not have easy access to right now. However, I would be leery of those numbers. They are most likely relative to some particular context (Sweden circa 2000?) and shouldn't be taken out of that context. It's probably better just to say something like "many cases go undiagnosed". I imagine that one of your existing sources can be cited for the more-vague claim. Eubulides 20:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall coming across anything general–vague, but I'll be on the lookout for it now.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found and added; Klin says it has become a "residual diagnosis", I've not yet encountered any mention of underdiagnosis in a review. The underdiagnosis statement was from 1993 (!!!) so I removed it (AS wasn't even in the DSM then). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to wonder how you find the undiagnosed ones...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been solid work in this area on other similar diagnoses, for example, Tourette syndrome.  Every look at a broad population (for example, thousands of school-age children in a given community) has determined that the majority of TS they picked up in the look at a broad population was previously undiagnosed; parents, teachers and clinicians alike were unaware of common tics.  I haven't seen such statements or studies on AS.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epidemiology 

message: Eubulides or Cas or anyone, are you able to access the second journal article to reconcile these two?  I'm familiar with the first, but not the second:
# A questionnaire returned by 92 parents found that, relative to a group of children with Tourette syndrome, the strong, repetitive interests of children with AS typically focus on the mechanical (how things work) as opposed to the psychological (how people work), suggesting impaired “folk psychology” in children with AS and superior “folk physics”.   
#   The parent(s) of 61 children and adolescents (19 with AS, 21 with HFA, and 21 TD) completed two interviews focused specifically on lifetime and current repetitive behavior symptoms. No reliable differences in repetitive behavior between AS and HFA children were found. Results suggested that circumscribed interests differ in developmental course from the three other DSM-IV-TR categories of repetitive behavior. Internal consistency among the four DSM-IV-TR categories of repetitive behavior was high, alpha = .84, providing evidence for a unitary repetitive behaviors factor. The importance of expanding research in the repetitive behavior domain is highlighted as part of the necessary integration of behavioral and neurobiological approaches to understanding the etiology of autism.
What other 3 DSM-IV-TR categoreis are they referring to, and what were the behaviors investigated relative to the first study?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 4 categories were B.1 through B.4 of Diagnostic criteria for 299.80 Asperger's Disorder. But before delving into this too deeply, shouldn't we be looking at review articles for this sort of thing rather than slogging through the primary literature? There must be at least a dozen studies in this area, e.g., , , . Eubulides 23:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I happened across it when I was looking for something else, and wasn't sure if it refuted the first result, which was only a parent questionnaire and deals with quality of obsessions rather than the AS/HFA dilemma.  I'm sticking with the review articles on AS/HFA :-)  If they don't mention this topic, I'm steering clear!  Do you feel the first questionnaire isn't worthy of mention?  The obsessions in AS are different than the obsessions in TS, which are different than the obsessions in OCD, is the idea there ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't mention the 1st questionnaire () either. As far as I know, that study hasn't been replicated and it is rarely mentioned (other than in papers by Baron-Cohen). Eubulides 02:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had not previously focused on the fact that it was a questionnaire, which troubles me.  I've just started rewriting Characteristics in my Sandbox, and will lose that part.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a review article is the best way to go  -just the bits above don't fill me with confidence (I feel questionnaires are a poor substitute for a clinician assessment..) - I wasn't near a hospital today and yesterday got snowed under...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of repetitive behaviors 

message: What does this sentence mean?
"Sometimes, the opposite problem occurs: the person with AS is unusually affectionate to significant others; and misses or misinterprets signals from the other partner, causing the partner stress."
KBry 15:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That entire section is being rewritten, see entry above.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear 

message: Now that the article is more comprehensive, I'm taking a new look at the External links per WP:EL, WP:RS; the inclusion of any link should be justified.  Anything that is already in the DMOZ link, or used elsewhere in the article, need not be in External links.
# Per WP:RS, why do we have http://www.autism-help.org/ ?  This should be a DMOZ link.
# Why do we include MedlinePlus when MedlinePlus is a standard link in the Infobox?
# Why do we use http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/actearly/autism.html when it deals more with autism than Asperger's?  Isn't there something more specific to Asperger's?
# BBCs h2g2 already discussed above (see Talk:Asperger_syndrome#Everybody_happy_now.3F); I'm Opposed to its inclusion because it's not a reliable source, but won't fight it.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link review 

message: This page is over 200KB; can we archive everything down to the point that the article was submitted at FAR, so that our next archive will be discussions during the FAR?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the same thing but had held off due to not being one of the main inputters. I'd agree. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll wait a bit to see if anyone disagrees, but it will be nice to have a clean archive of the FAR period.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the agreement of someone who hardly has time to read this count, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE ARCHIVE IT :o) --Zeraeph 21:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive ?