Khan 1

Omar Khan
Gardner
English 10, Period 4
3 May 2015
Is Overdiagnosis to Blame for the Increase in Autism Rates?
One in one hundred and fifty. Those were the chances of an American child having
autism in 2005. Ten years later the CDC states that the rate has dramatically increased to one in
sixty eight children (Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder). Trends show that autism is
becoming increasingly more common, however some researchers believe that, for once, the math
is lying to us. They believe that the rates of autism have remained constant, and that our
diagnostic testing system has improved to diagnose more children. Another explanation for the
alleged skyrocket in autism rates is that autistic children were mistaken for children with
asperger's or another condition that shares similar characteristics (Roth). Statistics arent simply
asking whether someones child has autism, but the method of asking, the area one asks in, the
amount of people one asks. These were not taken under consideration when the recent count was
taken, altering the effectiveness of the results. By having our numbers incorrect, we are
jeopardizing future projections and vital trends essential for diagnostic purposes. If we allow
ourselves to think that these statistics are correct, we are risking losing a potential lead in the
factors linked to autism, which may be forfeiting a cure to the disorder. Autism rates seem to be
rising because the definition of autism changed, the two tests administered were not identical,
and the methods of testing have been questioned.
Those who compare the results of the newer and older test argue that the test results show
that the rates are rising. Walter Zahorodny, a psychologist from Rutgers New Jersey Medical

Khan 2
School, states that This is a good study, done with a large U.S. sample, and it correctly reflects
the magnitude of increase in autism spectrum disorder over the past years. (Autism count is up
for debate). Zahorodny claims that the the study was good, but fails to prove this claim with
ample evidence. A study conducted by Yale experts revealed a startling similarity between autism
rates in the US and Korea; both seemed to rise. The frequency of autism in Korean children is
now one in thirty eight (Karen Peart). The fact that the rate of autism is that common for children
in Korea provides nothing to the overall trend in autism rates, because the tests are different. The
tests given to children in Korea and America were both more advanced and superior than tests
given previously. At a first glance it may seem like the autism rates are rising, however autism
rates calculate in Korea and America can not be compared with the tests administered earlier
because the tests have been altered and are no longer comparable.
Additionally the very definition of autism has changed between the two tests. The
definition of autism was recently changed in 2014 by the American Psychiatric Association
which added broader parameters for autism. With a change in definition of autism some test
results that proved negative for autism would now prove positive for the disorder, even though
the child himself, or herself, has not done anything to instigate this change; the child was autistic
to begin with. It seems obvious that by changing the very definition of a condition the amount of
children that fall under the new definition would be different than the amount who fell under the
older definition. J. Madeleine Nash, a senior reporter for TIME, acknowledges expanding the
definition of autism to include everything from the severely retarded to the mildest cases, that is
partly responsible for the recent explosion in autism diagnoses (Nash). Test results acquired
before the change in definition should not be compared with results of tests acquired after the
definition change.

Khan 3
By altering the diagnostics test one also alters the effectiveness and precision of the test.
Mark Roth, a science and English professor at Carnegie Mellon, says some have argued that
autistic people were simply given other labels in the past, from schizophrenia to retardation.
This seems plausible, as these disorders have very similar characteristics which may be difficult
to distinguish. As Dr. Matthew Maenner, a PhD in epidemiology, states, In an interview earlier
this year, Dr. Insel acknowledged that up to half of the increase in autism numbers may be due to
such factors as a broader diagnosis (Roth). If the tests are different, then we can no longer hold
the past diagnostics to be true. More total cases of autism, Robert Brock asserts, were
detected with the revised checklist than with earlier versions ("Revised Autism Screening Tool
Offers More Precise Assessment"). Alan Zarembo, winner of the Livingston award for reporting,
says Rather, better detection appears to be driving the surge (Zarembo). To receive a somewhat
accurate rate for the increase of autism the same test would have to be given both times the test
was conducted, however the change of the test adds a whole new dimension on the statistical
accuracy of the autism rate.
The methodology of the testing itself was questioned, raising the question; Can we trust
these numbers at all? Some experts say no, that the method of acquiring the statistics for autism
rates is not the best way to gain the numbers necessary to publish a statistic, a national phone
survey in 2011 of about 95,000 parents. The 1 in 88 statistic was calculated by much more
reliable statistical methods by the CDC. Zahorodny admits that it may be biased from the
perspective of who responds (cited in Layton). It is not guaranteed that the person who answers
the phone has the proper knowledge if a child in their house is autistic. Because of the methods
of acquiring results were somewhat biased, as Zahorodny says, the statistics can not be held
completely true.

Khan 4
Autism rates are not rising but they seem to be because of the change in definition of
autism coupled with different diagnostic tests and errors in acquiring data. If we allow ourselves
to think that autism rates are increasing we are drastically altering future projections for autism
rates. Possible treatment or identification of the factors linked to the disorder are also in
jeopardy. Being diagnosed with autism is a massive hindrance, and our statistics wrongfully
claim that autism is becoming more common. Researching about autism is plenty to help the
cause, by being aware of global issues is how we will be able to change things.

Works Cited
Layton, Mary Jo. "Autism Count Is Up for Debate." The Record. 23 Mar. 2013: A.1. SIRS Issues
Researcher. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.

Khan 5
Nash, J. Madeleine. "The Secrets of Autism." Time. 06 May 2002: 46-56. SIRS Issues
Researcher. Web. 11 May 2015.

Peart, Karen N. "Prevalence of Autism in South Korea Estimated at 1 in 38 Children." N.p., n.d.
Web. 27 Apr. 2015.

"Revised Autism Screening Tool Offers More Precise Assessment." NIH News Release. 23 Dec.
2013: n.p. SIRS Government Reporter. Web. 11 May 2015.

Roth, Mark. "Debate Continues: Is Autism Really Growing?." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 06 Oct.
2013: A.5. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 10 Apr. 2015.
Zarembo, Alan. "Study Finds More Autism Cases Reported." Los Angeles Times. 21 Mar. 2013:
A.9. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.