Once Again, the World Discovers That People with Autism Are Bright But Different
Led by psychologist Laurent Mottron of the University of Montreal, the team gave both autistic kids and normal kids two of the most popular IQ tests used in schools. The two tests are both highly regarded, but they are very different. The so-called WISC relies heavily on language, which is why the psychologists were suspicious of it. The other, known as the Raven's Progressive Matrices, is considered the preeminent test of what's called "fluid intelligence," that is, the ability to infer rules, to set and manage goals, to do high-level abstractions. Basically the test presents arrays of complicated patterns with one missing, and test takers are required to choose the one that would logically complete the series. The test demands a good memory, focused attention and other "executive skills," but--unlike the WISC--it doesn't require much language.When I read this article, I had a sudden sense of deja vu, and went back to my prior blogs. It turns out that I announced exactly this same information, and a very similar research project, in February of 2006:The idea was that the autistic kids' true intelligence might shine through if they could bypass the language deficit. And that's exactly what happened.
The difference between their scores on the WISC and the Raven's test was striking: For example, not a single autistic child scored in the "high intelligence" range of the WISC, yet fully a third did on the Raven's. Similarly, a third of the autistics had WISC scores in the mentally retarded range, whereas only one in 20 scored that low on the Raven's test. The normal kids had basically the same results on both tests.
In not very surprising news, it turns out that standard IQ tests are lousy tools for measuring the intelligence of autistic individuals. In fact, say researchers presenting at conference sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, standard IQ tests may lower our kids' scores by 30 IQ points or more.The same questions were asked and the same research tools were used - more than a year apart - to come to precisely the same findings: that people with autism are just as bright as any other group of people, but that they think differently.A Reuters article, entitled Bright Autistic Kids Misunderstood, lays out all the details. Among other points, it states that a particular IQ test, called the Raven Progressive Matrices, is a far better tool than the usual Wechsler or Vineland IQ tests.
Interested in learning more? You can read the actual poster presentation online. It's called The Nature of Autistic Intelligence, and its well worth a quick read. It may offer parents a very useful tool for improving their children's educational options.
So...what happened in the intervening year? Did the good folks at the University of Montreal simply miss the AAAS research, the Reuters article, and the poster presentation? Since they're clearly in the same field with the same interests, it seems hard to believe. Yet today's findings are presented as if they were a brand-new breakthrough in psychology.
More importantly for our children and for adults on the autism spectrum - why is a standardized test like the Raven Matrices, which was not developed for autistic people but for people in general, NOT being used to test our children's intelligence? Why, instead, are they STILL being subjected to tests which are obviously inappropriate - and then judged, placed, and educated on the basis of the results?
My own son went through the WISC and was found to be signficantly mentally retarded. I asked the psychologist who tested him how it was possible that a then-9-year-old with significant retardation could be reading, writing, doing math, playing piano, and generally showing clear signs of ability. Her response was that, evidently, the test had not been appropriate to the child. I asked about Raven, and was told that the test was not available to her. This psychologist works for a county agency in Pennsylvania - one of the better autism programs in one of the better autism states in the US. How much worse much the situation be in other places in the US and abroad?
Have you or has your child been given the Raven matrices as opposed to WISC or Vineland? Are things in fact any different or better in the UK, Australia, Canada, or elsewhere?
Comments
Wow, I guess that one study, proves that all autistic people are “pretty bright”?
If only the scrutiny of the hundreds of studies demonstrating ABA effectiveness was so weak.
It is common and standard practice for researchers to present preliminary data (in posters or presentations) at research conferences, often several research conferences, before a paper is published in a peer-reviewed journal, and often before it is submitted.
To give one example, data from an fMRI face study were first presented by Morton Gernsbacher in 2003 (Psychonomics Society), then by Richie Davidson (IMFAR 2004), before the final data were published in more than one paper (Dalton et al., 2005; Nacewicz et al., 2006).
Very preliminary data about autistics’ RPM performance were published by Dr Mottron’s group in 2004 (Mottron, 2004). This was an accidental finding. As we looked into this accidental finding, more related data were reported by us at IMFAR 2005 and the 2006 AAAS conference. The data are now published in a peer-reviewed journal (Psycological Science, in the August issue).
The same researchers were involved throughout (this would be easy to establish if you looked at any of your sources), with the addition of contributions from Morton Gernsbacher and her lab. The information you provide is therefore false and misleading.
I also suggest that those who widely disseminate information about autism research should read the studies they are commenting on.
(I tried to post this comment, and it disappeared. Because this post is so misleading, I am trying again.)
It is common and standard practice for researchers to present preliminary data (in posters or presentations) at research conferences, often several research conferences, before a paper is published in a peer-reviewed journal, and often before it is submitted.
To give one example, data from an fMRI face study were first presented by Morton Gernsbacher in 2003 (Psychonomics Society), then by Richie Davidson (IMFAR 2004), before the final data were published in more than one paper (Dalton et al., 2005; Nacewicz et al., 2006).
Very preliminary data about autistics’ RPM performance were published by Dr Mottron’s group in 2004 (Mottron, 2004). This was an accidental finding. As we looked into this accidental finding, more related data were reported by us at IMFAR 2005 and the 2006 AAAS conference. The data are now published in a peer-reviewed journal (Psycological Science, in the August issue).
The same researchers were involved throughout (this would be easy to establish if you looked at any of your sources), with the addition of contributions from Morton Gernsbacher and her lab. The information you provide is therefore false and misleading.
I also suggest that those who widely disseminate information about autism research should read the studies they are commenting on.
Sorry about the double post; the first message showed up after I posted the second.
Ms Dawson
Since you are participating in this discussion I have a couple of preliminary questions for you about the study, speaking as someone who has actually read the study, (once only, I will study it further when time permits).
1. I can’t see where in the study report it indicates how instructions are given for the test on which autistic persons scored well. Did they read the instructions? Were the instructions read to them? Did any students who had no or little understanding of language take the test?
2. Were all the persons who took the test patients at the same facility at which you and Dr. Mottron perform your studies of high functioning autistic persons? If so, were you concerned about bias and inadvertent influence in the selection of candidates for the study?
3. Do the results of the study have any significance for low functioning autistic persons who would not understand the test instructions?
4. Do you consider the lack of ability in relation to the verbal oriented tests an indication that autistics are less intelligent in relation to language? If so, do you consider understanding and ability to use language an important measure of intelligence?
5. For parents such as me with truly low functioning autistic children for whom explanation of everyday dangers such as automobile traffic is problematic do the skills demonstrated in this test have any bearing or relevance assuming that my son shares this ability?
Hi Mr Doherty,
Thank you for reading our paper. That is where you will find the answers to your questions.
1. See the reference we provided for Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices.
2. The participants are described in our paper.
3. The significance of our findings is described in our paper.
4. The extent to which language (which is not the same as speech) is an issue in our study is indicated in our paper. If you want to investigate further (as we did in our 2005 IMFAR poster, and at the 2006 AAAS meeting), I suggest looking at the RPM literature.
5. The relevance of our findings is discussed in our paper.
Ms Dawson
If you are reluctant to answer my questions fine but, with all respect, the answers to my article, which you say are in your article, are not there.
Hi Mr Doherty,
While I agree that the information in our paper (and in the RPM literature) may not answer your questions in the way which you would prefer, it does answer your questions.
My apologies for not digging more deeply to see that some of the same researchers were involved in both studies cited. And thanks for setting the blog straight.
I am still curious, though, as to why the same findings, a year apart, don’t seem to lead to use of new IQ tests for our kids (or adults). There are so many things that are terribly difficult to implement – new educational and treatment approaches… insurance coverage… zeroing in on a cause for autism. Here is such a simple “fix” – using this test instead of that one.
Given that no IQ test can fully describe anyone’s ability, it would certainly be terrific to see our educational systems selecting from a number of options rather than assuming that “one size fits all.”
Lisa (About.com Guide to Autism)
Ms Dawson,
As a parent who clings to every shred of information that comes from the research community, I thank you for your effort and part in the research you present. I am looking forward to reading your paper.
However, I am somewhat shocked at the cold tone you took with Mr Doherty. It is sad that you cannot be more civil in your exchange, and at least refer him to the paragraph or page that explicitly addresses his very polite inquiry.
Since access to the paper will cost each interested parent $29, perhaps promoting more reasons for us to purchase it would persuade you to be a little more giving? I long for more compassion between researchers and parents (and I do know that often they are one and the same).
Sincerely,
Venessa Sylvester
Da!
Joeschedule.com
Hi Ms Rudy,
You wrote about “the same findings, a year apart”.
The necessary test of a study’s findings is not media stories (or press releases), or even whether the study is accepted for presentation at a major research conference. The necessary test is peer-review at the level of credible peer-reviewed journals.
Studies presented at major, credible research conferences are informative: they give other scientists, and the public (when there is media coverage), an idea of what research might later appear in peer-reviewed journals. But until this happens, findings presented at conferences should be considered preliminary. Many more studies are presented at research conferences than are ever published in peer-reviewed journals.
Also, all studies which appear in peer-reviewed journals have limitations and weaknesses. Over time, some results are never replicated or are only inconsistently replicated, and must be reconsidered. Or results might be replicated, but reinterpreted according to new data. Findings published in credible peer-reviewed journals merit serious consideration, but they should never be read uncritically.
Hi Ms Sylvester,
The authorship of our paper includes one diagnosed autistic and one parent of an autistic child.
Mr Doherty is a powerful and influential autism expert, involved in deciding the future of all autistic people in Canada. Mr Doherty claims expertise in multiple areas of autism science.
At the same time, Mr Doherty has publicly denied that the authors of the paper in question know anything about autism. Indeed, he has publicly and frequently expressed extreme contempt for Dr Mottron, Dr Gernsbacher and me, including by accusing some of us of fraud.
This can be seen on Mr Doherty’s blog (Mr Doherty, a lawyer, is well-known for censoring comments on his blog), and on Mr Doherty’s many hostile (that is, uncivil) comments on my blog, and elsewhere.
In this case, I treated Mr Doherty’s questions as genuine, while leaving aside the unsupported assummptions he incorporated into some of these questions. I answered the content of his questions politely and mininally within the limitations of our study, which he has read.
I am not prepared to challenge Mr Doherty’s claims of expertise (I treat Mr Doherty like an expert), nor to tell Mr Doherty how to read a scientific paper. This would clearly be condescending and rude (uncivil) on my part.
Also, Mr Doherty has a long history of rejecting whatever I write as being ignorant, false or fraudulent. This is why I could only refer him to the published paper and to the published literature, which does genuinely answer the questions he posed, though (as I wrote) not necessarily in the way he might prefer.
My response to Mr Doherty should not be considered typical of how I would respond to a parent who had not read our paper, who had not already expressed extreme contempt for the papers’ authors, who does not consider himself far more expert in autism than the papers’ authors, etc. In short, my response was specific to Mr Doherty.
When questioned by a person, Mr Doherty, who has expressed extreme contempt for myself and my colleagues, and who considers himself far more expert than any of us, the best I could do was refer him to the published literature.
If you have questions, I would be happy to try to answer them (I’m a bit busy, so it might take a while, but I’ll try).
Mr Doherty and Ms Dawson – please take your confrontations elsewhere. I was very interested in answers for Mr Doherty’s questions as they where ones that I myself had after reading the comments. I wish his questions did not contain “unsupported assumptions” and that Ms Dawson could provide answers that we as caregivers could use or even, provide a general summary of the study.
My son scores at the high end of “retarded” or low end of “normal” mainly because he’s too interested in the smell of the paper and pencil. We know he’s very intelligent because he’s clever as heck when he wants something!
Ms Dawson,
Thanks so much for your clarification. It is funny how the more I read, the smaller the ‘world of autism’ gets. I enjoyed your blog as well. I deeply appreciate your work on behalf of my son and all people with autism.
It is sad how there are so many little wars waging out there, and I guess I just wandered in and didn’t see the subtext.
I look forward to seeing more of your work, and hope to buy the paper sometime in the near future. It just isn’t in this month’s budge.
Sincerely,
Venessa
“budget”
Thanks Vanessa–if you email me, I can send you a pdf of the paper. You should be able to find an email address for me online (e.g., I have a website, which is linked to my blog profile).
For DGallek, I apologize, but it became necessary for me to explain why I responded to Mr Doherty as I did. The study’s abstract is available here, click on “(View Abstract)”. The abstract provides a summary of our study and its findings. If you have questions, feel free to ask (again, I may take a while to get back to you); I am not sure which of Mr Doherty’s questions you want answered, and I hesitate to take up a lot more of Ms Rudy’s space.
wow – I hadn’t realized that this particular research project had so much history.
Michelle, if you would care to pass along a copy of the study to autism.guide@about.com, I’d be delighted to read it – and then get back to you with specific questions. Following that, I will put together a short article for the site. Hopefully, we’ll be able to address some of Harold’s questions as well as my own!
Lisa
Just a quick suggestion for anyone that would like to read the paper for free: check with your local public library to see if they can get you a copy. I know that ours has an Interlibrary Loan program where they will provide photocopies of journal articles, usually for free but sometimes with a small fee.
I’m going to my libraries website right now to request it myself.
That’s just a great suggestion from Brett Miller. Libraries are wonderful.
Long before I had access to research assistance, I made heavy use of public and university libraries.
In my experience (I’m in Canada; not sure about elsewhere), many university libraries allow you to look through journals and to photocopy journal articles, and may also have computers on which you can look at online journal articles. This is even if you’ve never been a student (or staff or whatever) at that university.
Ms Rudy, I’ll email you when I can. I’m a bit behind in things so please be patient. Thanks!
Question for Harold Doherty (who has a *truly* -truly- low functioning autistic child, unlike most of the rest of us apparently):
Has your child been assessed with the RPM, and if so, how? Maybe Michelle can give you some pointers on how to go about it.
I haven’t had a chance to read the paper. (Michelle: If you can send me a copy to joseph449008 at hotmail.com I’d appreciate it – thanks). But I guess selection bias is one possible criticism. Not so much for the gap found between RPM and Weschler scores, but for the scores in general. The gap is still a finding of interest, and it’s not so easy to imagine how selection bias could account for it.
We’ll have to watch how rebuttals and replications play out. This finding is the first of its kind and could very well be ground-breaking, though.
As one commenter has noted, this forum is not the place for any animosity. I asked only civil questions.
For the record, I have never made any claim of expertise. I speak only as the father of a severely autistic child. I have never accused Ms Dawson or anyone else of fraud.
I will simply ignore the other personal attacks made by Ms Dawson and I will not seek answers from her on this forum. I thank her for the compliments about my supposed influence, another claim which I myself do not actually make.
The questions I posed were not answered in her study. That is why I asked them.
Harold Doherty