Talk:Pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified

message: I find some of the characteristics somewhat vague. "Uneven skill development (strengths in some areas and delays in others)", to my knowledge this is just human, every person has their own style of development and their own skill development priorities. Also "Unusual likes and dislikes[2]", this is just not specific enough. Are these likes and dislikes, regarded as 'unusual' by society? Such as the liking of geeky things? (e.g. science fiction, fantasy, conventions, LARP'ing?). And finally; "Unusual play with toys and other objects", yet again somewhat vague, though I know what the writer meant. It would be better if it would be rephrased to something like: 'Obsessive play with toys and other objects unusual for their age'. (At least, if I understood the phrase correctly.) -- I also want to clear something up, sort of... The source of these 'characteristics' may not be accurate, as is a lot information available on the internet. Most of these 'information' sites, try to use the simplest of terms, but while doing that they'll lose a lot of contextual details. Some texts are written by parents who believe just about anything, and get their facts wrong. Besides, and then I'm returning to the ancient question about the terminology of PDD-NOS (as quoted from the Wiki article: "Description of PDD-NOS merely as a "subthreshold" category without a more specific case definition poses methodological problems for research regarding the relatively heterogeneous group of people who receive this diagnosis.") First of all; considering PDD-NOS as 'one and the same' is the actual problem that researchers face. PDD-NOS is a vague category. All ranges of people are in this category, but none of them are actually the same. -- Now, having determined that PDD-NOS is actually a vague category (for people they just don't understand, yet). My conclusion must be that, because we actually know so little facts about PDD-NOS, it needs to be researched more first. To get this research done, the researchers shouldn't see PDD-NOS as 'one disorder', but instead look at it as a category that has many unique individuals in it, of which no one is the same. To say it boldly, label them. PDD-NOS is in fact the 'Miscellaneous' category of Autism. First sort them, then you can actually help them. As that's the problem, they try to help people with PDD-NOS, but can only come up with vague descriptions and slightly help the people with PDD-NOS, while they don't know anything about it. To make up a complete nonsense word, 'Unvague PDD-NOS'. Because if it's vague, nobody can be taught facts to help and inform people with PDD-NOS and their surroundings. -- I'm sorry for too much personal views, I just can't agree on viewpoints that are vague, misinforming and especially misleading. Since all current research on PDD-NOS is vague and 'trial and error', and the 'common knowledge' is too simplistic, so that anyone who's slightly different has PDD-NOS. In fact; way too many children have PDD-NOS already, only because they are slightly smarter, flunk at school, have great dreams, get bullied, like to pretend that their bicycle is a spaceship or can't connect with other kids (very common, especially now everyone OCD's over football/soccer, other sports, cars and other things that depends on one's own taste or interest) Sources about PDD-NOS aren't reliable, since it's all a grey area and needs to be researched more. Common knowledge about PDD-NOS should not to be believed, since it's full of misleading truths that might be right for one person with PDD-NOS, but doesn't even get close to apply to another person with PDD-NOS.
83.128.18.209 (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Characteristics

message: Previous version was plagiarised from the Yale site listed as an external link. I paraphrased it. Some sort of citation is still needed. Also, the references section seems to cite a wikipedia article as a reference, and, in general, seems awkward.
128.84.16.164 02:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: This page is talking about PDD-NOS as if it's PDD. They are not the same thing. I propose they be split and the current page be PDD only, while PDD-NOS gets a new page. Chriscc123 (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you're proposing this seeing as there already is a separate PDD article. Also, I don't see that this article addresses PDD and not specifically PDD-NOS, although it could certainly use a great deal of expansion. Watermelon mang (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems entirely unnecessary to create new pages.  PDD is the umbrella underwhich PDD-NOS falls.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.129.173 (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Split proposal

message: Merge might be good, but currently this entire section is poorly written and needs to be thoroughly edited!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.227.128 (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes it is good to have some time to think. I don't agree with my merger proposal any more. PDD-NOS should have its own article, just as autism and asperger have their own articles. So I removed the proposal. :) Lova Falk talk 16:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on the fence. I wouldn't have objected to a merge, but I'm fine with individual articles as well. This article could use some fleshing out, but that is a separate issue. Gopher65talk 01:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Merge might be good, but currently this entire section is poorly written and needs to be thoroughly edited!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.227.128 (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I felt that it was necessary to bring up the issue that this Article seems to my eyes to be extreamly unclear in the examples that it gives.   For instance, what is meant by "...if told that the neighbor next to her running shoes, sometimes a child with PDD-NOS expect the neighbor literally next to her shoes."? This seems to literaly be saying she is next to her shoes, yet the article suggests the child would be wrong in thinking this. What other meaning could that phrase possibly have, other than a literal one? The second one is not much better.  "...if there is a mess and there are newspapers, paper, garbage and waste. If then asked if this mess is observed, it may appear that the person with PDD-NOS has only the garbage." This one is extreamly unclear and confusing, in fact I cannot make heads or tails out of it. What is meant by "it may appear that the person with PDD-NOS has only the garbage."??? To who does it appear this person has only garbage, and what is the difference between garbage and waste!?! Not to mention what in the world could this possibly have to do with PDD-NOS?!  Frankensteinmoneymac (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Most likely an attempt as translation, in Dutch there is a saying that translates to something like "walking besides their shoes", which is used for someone who's being too proud of themselves. And I think I've seen that expression used in the pdd-nos article on nl-wiki, just as the other example about the garbage. Fenke (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unfortunate that this was already merged, as PDD and PDD-NOS are, in a way, two completely different things. I have already expressed my, "concerns" below, but it needs to be made clear that PDD-NOS is not PDD. Is there anything that can be done? Chriscc123 (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is completely lacking in reference to the DSM-IV-TR (or any authoratative diagnostic criterion handbook, such as ICD-10)--- this calls into serious question the validity of many of the statement made within it as they are referenced, almost entirely, to non-scholarly sources--- e.g., autismspeaks.org, an organization website with an agenda to advance.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.129.173 (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: About clarity in this article

message: I am not going to came to be an expert in this field, nor have I read much material on it, but the way PDD-NOS was described to me there was a lot of emphasis on the NOS part. Again the way it was explained to me was that every diagnosis has a numbers (and letters?), and that the whole point of PDD-NOS is to be vague enough to mean "Well, you got something but it doesn't have an actual name so were just going to call it PDD-NOS."? Or do I need to check my facts again?  Also the fact there all it seems the whole article is about is personality disorders... Chriscc123 (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my understanding as well, but I'm not an expert either. — Gopher65talk 15:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics section and fallowing sub-sections geared towards Aspergers?

message: Can someone explain me why this article is written like an information brochure to parents. I mean it's not like PDD-NOS disappears when you're 18, or that the expected age is lower... Bigtukker (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children 

message: Once I started, I couldn't stop and I rewrote most of this article. So now it's time for you all to please edit my edits! Lova Falk talk 17:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major editing 

message: There is no longer "Autism Spectrum Disorders", it is now one disorder called "Autism Spectrum Disorder" as redefined by the American Psychiatric Association as of December 1, 2012. The diagnoses of which will be a ranged of effect, basically one is only diagnosed now as Autistic and by a varying percentage and grouping, so on the mild end is Mild Autism, moderate would be High Functioning Autism and then full Autism, it is important that these are sub categories of one disorder now and not individual diagnosis's, there is only Autism as the diagnosis. However, it is not yet certain if PDD-NOS is going to be considered it's own diagnoses rather than being lumped in with Autism as the APA hasn't yet clarified on that, so PDD-NOS is not part of Autism or it is no longer a valid diagnoses and has been dropped like Asperger's Syndrome was and is now considered just Autism as well, so, perhaps an edit eluding to the changes is in need on the main article about possible changes. I suspect though that it has been dropped and is now just considered Autism, though where on the spectrum (scale) it fits in is beyond suspicion at this time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thephox1982 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a discussion about this on other autism pages, for instance here Talk:Asperger_syndrome#Time_for_a_revisit_to_this_article. Presently, lots of patients worldwide still get or have recently got this diagnosis PDD-NOS. But I agree that eventually we will have to rewrite the article and make clear that this diagnosis belongs to the past. Lova Falk talk 16:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-existent disorder 

message: Source 2, referenced 7 times, is unavailable.  Page http://autismspectrum.illinoisstate.edu/resources/documents/PDD-NOSFactSheet.pdf returns "The resource you are looking for has been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable." --Agoramachina (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Agoramachina for your comment. I have now changed the address to the fact sheet. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 07:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing source 

message: I find the infobox confusing. As far as I know PDD-NOS is a DSM-IV term. In the ICD-10 classification atypical autism (F84.1) should probably be considered the main pendant? But I guess there is also an overlap with Other PDD (F84.8) and PDD, unspecified (F84.9)? 192.38.44.250 (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing infobox