<p>Re post #188: That quote (about Aspergers “would be” characterized by interest in social relations, etc.) refers to a proposal by Fred Volkmar & his Yale team, referred to as the “Klin” criteria because it comes from a 2005 research journal article (Klin, A., Pauls, D., Schultz, R., & Volkmar, F. (2005). Three Diagnostic Approaches to Asperger Syndrome: Implications for Research Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35 (2), 221-234 )</p>
<p>That is NOT the current diagnostic standard and is not likely to be used or revived in the DSM V. As the extensive quotes that Shrinkrap provided show, the current consensus opinion for purposes of the DSM V seems to be that the autism/Aspergers distinction is not useful, and focus should instead be on level of impairment. </p>
<p>I would assume that the DSM IV or ICD 10 are the appropriate sources to ascertain current diagnostic criteria, but if clinicians are going to pick & choose based on the work of various research teams, then I don’t really see the basis on which one person can argue that the Klin criteria take precedence over other formulations, such as the Szatmari criteria. I mean, the whole point of the DSM is to try to publish something based on a collaborative process. </p>
<p>The standard approach in the past for differentiating between autism & Asperger’s has been the presence or absence of early childhood language difficulties. The Klin study took issue with that distinction, but it merely suggested a different, arbitrary formulation. Unfortunately, there have been no satisfactory diagnostic criteria thus far, precisely because there is such a wide variation in traits and history of individuals with ASD. It historically has been a nightmare for parents of severely impaired children to get a firm diagnosis because their kid has a mix & match set of traits that show up on different charts.</p>