Autism Neurodevelopmental Disorder: Why Some People Don't Like 'Spectrum'

It’s been over a decade, but the decision made by doctors and scientists to stop using the diagnosis of “Asperger’s Syndrome” continues to be controversial and continuously debated today. Following years of research and considerable debate, it was decided in 2013 to place everyone with autism and Asperger’s syndrome in the same category.

The change to merge the neurodevelopmental disorder was timed with the release of the 5^th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), which is published by the American Psychiatric Association.

Table of Contents

You can learn more about the DSM-5 and what it says about autism.

The decision was lauded by some, and heavily opposed by others. While the answer to the commonly asked question, “Is Asperger’s still diagnosed?” is no, many adults may refer to themselves as having Asperger’s syndrome. That’s because that is the diagnosis that they received if it pre-dated 2013). But the question remains as to why this decision was made.

Specific stated reasons included the belief that the placement of autism and Asperger’s syndrome under a common umbrella promotes consistency and reduces diagnostic biases.

Additional explanations about why autism and Asperger’s syndrome are now considered the same are:

The distinction between Asperger’s and high-functioning autism was unreliable and there was an inconsistent application of the terms
There was a large overlap of symptoms across autism and Asperger’s syndrome
The focus was shifted to the severity of symptoms and the level of support needed rather than distinctive categories
Autism and Asperger’s syndrome share genetic and neurobiological similarities, and the DSM authors wanted to end the misconception that Asperger’s was a different condition than autism.

So instead of distinct diagnoses for autistic disorder, Asperger’s syndrome, childhood disintegrative disorder, and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS), the DSM-5 introduced a single diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).

There’s also another reason that people don’t like to talk about as much.

Asperger’s syndrome was named after an Australian pediatrician, who was a Nazi. Research confirms he participated in the murder of children with disabilities under the Third Reich, and DSM authors wanted to distance the neurodevelopmental disorder from this heinous time in history.

It should be noted that he didn’t create the term himself. British psychiatrist Lorna Wing grouped the traits, naming it Asperger’s syndrome, in 1981. It was added to the DSM-IV in 1994.

However, many people criticized this decision to remove Asperger’s as a separate diagnosis, saying there is a difference between autism and Asperger’s syndrome. Those who don’t favor the consolidation say the separation of Asperger’s and the other sub-categories as well as sub-types made it easier to say what kind of autism a person has. Proponents of the merging say it shouldn’t matter, as the real question is whether or not someone has a developmental disorder, and not to what degree.

While individuals diagnosed with Asperger’s in 2013 or before tend to stick with their diagnosis of “Asperger’s syndrome,” those diagnosed in 2013 or later are typically only told they have “Autism Spectrum Disorder”.

I’m on the bubble, as I didn’t receive my diagnosis until 2013. It was explained that while I was diagnosed as having Asperger’s, they would be referring to it as autism from that point forward.

Confusing, I know. That’s why the debate continues, and as far as I can tell, there is no one right answer or approach. But that’s why the question of, “Is Asperger’s Still Diagnosed?” officially is no.

RELATED: Do You Know Your Flavor of Autism?

The Broad Spectrum of Autism vs Asperger’s

A non-speaking child who has severe sensory issues, engages in self-injurious behaviors, and requires constant supervision gets given the same clinical diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder as a quirky software developer who is highly intelligent but has difficulties with social cues and intense specialized interests.

On the surface, these two individuals could hardly seem more different in their level of functioning and need for supportive services. Yet they technically fall under the same broad diagnostic category.

This has created a great deal of uncertainty, misconceptions, and mixed messaging around what autism looks and feels like across the entire spectrum. Media portrayals and public awareness campaigns often focus on the more severely impacted individuals, especially those who were diagnosed as children.

The face of autism is still dominated by images of non-verbal youngsters having meltdowns, rocking back and forth, or lining up toys. While technically accurate, these examples represent just one segment at the profound end of the autism spectrum.

So where does this leave the much larger population on the other end of the spectrum—those with high-functioning autism or Asperger’s profiles?

Their more subtle social challenges, anxiety issues, and sensory quirks often get overlooked or misunderstood. These individuals dealing with mild but very real impairments can feel left out of the narrative, facing misperceptions that they don’t qualify as truly “autistic.” They may not require the same level of services as those with intellectual disabilities but still need acceptance, accommodations, and support in their own right. That summarization perfectly describes me.

READ MORE: Autism vs Asperger’s Syndrome – What You Need to Know

Neurodevelopmental Disorder Defined: The Origins of the Autism Spectrum Model

So how did we end up with this one-size-fits-all diagnostic approach that has caused so much confusion?

Fundamentally, researchers and clinicians wanted to move away from rigid strict categories and acknowledge that autism does exist along a true spectrum of abilities and impairments, without clear separations or cut-offs.

Before 2013, as mentioned earlier, there were several different diagnostic sub-types within what was called the “autism spectrum disorders.” This included Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS). Each category had slightly different criteria and behavioral descriptions, with Asperger’s representing the high-functioning end of the spectrum.

However, this system was criticized for promoting inconsistencies in how different clinicians applied the categories, as well as potential biases where certain demographics tended to get diagnosed in certain buckets over others. There were also questions about the validity of rigid separate categories existing on a true spectrum.

So in 2013, the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) did away with the sub-types and consolidated everything under the single umbrella diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), with levels of support descriptors. But many feel this went too far in the opposite direction, failing to reflect the true range of presentations. Especially since there did seem to be a defined difference between autism and Asperger’s syndrome.

RELATED: Thinking Differently – Why Having Brains on Fire Sparks Innovation

A Call for More Nuanced Diagnostic Tools Considering Autism and Asperger’s Syndrome

The term “spectrum” was meant to indicate autism is not a single disorder with a fixed set of traits. It represents a wide array of characteristics and severities that blend into each other, without clear separation points.

Ultimately, more nuanced clinical tools and clearer specifiers may be needed to better communicate where an individual falls along the wide autism spectrum and what level of support services are most appropriate.

Some have proposed separating the spectrum into three broad levels or subgroups: severe/low-functioning autism, moderate/medium-functioning autism, and high-functioning autism/Asperger’s. Of course, there is still diversity within each group, but it could help remove stigma for mildly affected people, validate their authentic challenges, and ensure support is available across all ability levels.

Others have suggested more descriptive labels beyond just “autism spectrum disorder,” such as adding qualifiers like “with/without intellectual disability” or “with/without language impairment.” This could go a long way to shaping more accurate perceptions and dismantling monolithic stereotypes.

Some clinicians may also utilize informal or observational rating tools and checklists to further describe an individual’s specific strengths and challenges across key areas like social communication, restricted interests, cognitive abilities, and adaptive functioning skills. Viewing autism through a multi-dimensional lens can prevent broad overgeneralizations.

RELATED: Top Autism Questions – What Being on the Spectrum Means

The Diversity Within the Autism Spectrum

Even within the broad subdivisions sometimes proposed on the autism spectrum, there exists immense diversity. For example, the “high-functioning” or Level 1 autism category could potentially include:

A university student with Asperger’s who has a genius-level IQ but severe social anxiety
A young software engineer on the spectrum who has sensory sensitivities and struggles with small talk at office parties but can live independently
A middle-aged scientist with intense special interests and an aloof personality style but otherwise typical cognitive abilities
A creative artist with autism who has intellectual giftings and skilled mastery of their craft but difficulties with executive functioning and self-care routines

Each of these individuals would likely receive an autism diagnosis without intellectual disability or language impairment specifiers. Yet their specific strengths, challenges, and personal experiences could vary tremendously based on their unique neurology, co-occurring conditions, support structures, and life circumstances.

Similarly, within the “moderate” or Level 2 range, some individuals may have a defined intellectual disability and require very substantial supervision and care, while others may have IQ scores in the average range but very pronounced speech/language deficits and behavioral rigidities that impact their daily functioning more significantly.

It is inaccurate to make assumptions that everyone within a proposed autism “level” would exhibit the same traits and have similar experiences, needs, and quality of life. Just like in the neurotypical population, there will always be individual-to-individual variation.

READ MORE: Exploring Myths and Realities of High-Functioning Autism

Role of Early Intervention and Therapy in a Neurodevelopmental Disorder

What research does seem to suggest is that the level of impairment many autistic individuals experience can depend heavily on the timing and intensity of supportive interventions, in addition to biological predispositions. Those whose autism is identified early and who undergo evidence-based behavioral, speech, occupational, and other therapies during the critical brain developmental windows tend to have significantly better long-term outcomes in areas like language, cognitive abilities, and adaptive skills.

Access to these early intensive therapies, along with tailored educational supports and effective teaching strategies, could mean the difference between being classified as “moderate” vs. “high-functioning” later in life, when it comes to measurements of functional skills and independence levels. It may also impact the extent to which underlying intellectual potential can be fully expressed.

So while core autism traits related to social communication differences and restricted patterns of behavior do represent a lifelong neurodivergent identity, there appears to be some level of developmental plasticity in youth that can affect the overall degree of impairment an autistic individual experiences later on.

Of course, there are still many unresolved questions surrounding issues like determining intellectual potential and customizing interventions to account for individual differences. In the coming years, we will hopefully gain more insights from longitudinal studies examining the intricate interplay of biology and environment on the developmental trajectories and long-term outcomes of those across the autism spectrum.

RELATED: Am I Neurodivergent? Understanding Neurodiversity and Its Value is Key

The Strengths and Abilities Perspective

Another long-standing criticism around the autism diagnosis and labels is that it has traditionally taken a deficits-based view focused on “impairments” in various domains. Even the language of levels and functioning can imply a narrow normative metric judging autistic experiences against societal expectations of “normal” behavior.

In recent years, there has been a welcomed shift toward the neurodiversity paradigm that aims to destigmatize autism by highlighting the unique strengths, abilities, and diverse ways of being that represent neurological variations. Instead of defining autism solely by perceived negative traits, it embraces the inherent value autistic individuals bring to our society.

Within every part of the spectrum, autism can include talents like:

Ability to think scientifically and systematically
Exceptional pattern recognition and attention to detail
Pursuit of depth over breadth in passionate interests
Out-of-the-box creative thinking and problem-solving
Capability for extraordinary focus and concentration
Memory strengths for facts, figures, and sequences
Superior skills in fields like mathematics, music, art, coding

Employers, universities, and organizations are increasingly recognizing the immense value of including neurodivergent perspectives and cognitive styles. Individuals across all levels of the spectrum have the potential to make meaningful contributions when provided with appropriate support and environments tailored to their unique needs.

The strengths-based narrative around autism is an essential counterbalance to historical deficit mindsets. It reframes autism as a fundamental part of human neurodiversity — an inseparable aspect of identity — rather than a condition to be “cured” or eliminated from society.

By taking a more holistic view that blends both challenges and strengths, we move closer to a future of authentically embracing all characteristics and experiences across the wide autism spectrum.

LEARN MORE: Spotlight on the Spectrum – Understanding 3 Levels of Autism

Understanding the Impacts of Language & Labeling

The autism community itself has divergent views on these issues around language, labeling, and separating sub-groups. Some self-advocates argue distinctions like autism and Asperger’s syndrome are problematic and create a false contrast, implying those with more severe challenges are somehow “more autistic.”

They contend the spectrum represents an infinite color gradient without clear lines.

Some concerns separating diagnostic categories could revive the very stigmas, biases, and barriers the spectrum model aimed to resolve. If clinicians view levels of autism from a deficit mindset, it could perpetuate beliefs that the “higher functioning” simply have “mild traits” rather than legitimate needs and neurodivergent identities.

On the other hand, some individuals feel strongly that their distinct Asperger’s or high-functioning experience has been erased from medical labels, leading to the minimization of their very real challenges. They want accurate portrayals and validation so that being on the higher end of the spectrum doesn’t make them “less autistic.”

These are complex issues with reasoning on both sides. Ultimately, open respectful dialogue that includes the perspectives of autistic self-advocates across all parts of the spectrum will be crucial as the autism community and medical establishment continue examining these distinctions and which language best serves the neurodivergent community.

In the meantime, more efforts are still needed to raise the widespread understanding that autism is not one single experience, but a wide array of presentations and ability levels. Only then can we dismantle misperceptions and ensure acceptance and appropriate support are available for every individual on the spectrum.

LEARN MORE: Labels and Names – Why Labeling People Leads to Discrimination

Moving Toward a More Inclusive Understanding

The autism spectrum encompasses an extraordinarily wide array of characteristics, skills, and personal experiences. Yet our current medical diagnostic criteria and public perceptions around autism often fail to fully capture and validate this diversity.

There doesn’t seem to be a single right answer about why Asperger’s syndrome is no longer an official diagnosis, which is why the debate continues.

By utilizing a single broad label of “autism spectrum disorder,” we risk painting an overly monolithic view that does not accurately represent the range of strengths, challenges, and support needs that exist. Those with profound autism requiring very substantial lifelong care can seem worlds apart from their neurodivergent peers who are high-achieving in academic or professional fields. And yet, their authentic experiences and identities all exist rightfully on the spectrum.

At the same time, attempts to subdivide the spectrum into distinct categories like Asperger’s or intellectual disability “levels” come with their own set of concerns around promoting false contradictions, reviving outmoded stereotypes, and overlooking the infinite unique variations within each group.

For now, as an individual diagnosed in 2013, I can say accurately that “I’m autistic” and “that I was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome.” While ambiguous, it works for me.

READ MORE: 8 Things I Wish People Understood About Autism Adult Symptoms