What They Did
The researchers recruited 357 participants from 19
workplaces in 7 industries and had them report formal diagnoses and
self-identification of neurodivergent conditions, including autism, ADHD, ADD,
DCD (developmental coordination disorder), dyslexia, dyscalculia, and high
giftedness. About 12% of participants had a formal diagnosis of at least one
neurodivergent condition, while about 27% answered that they believed they had
at least one neurodivergent condition.
All participants completed assessments of decision-making styles, verbal vs.
visual cognitive styles, and deliberate reasoning.
The researchers found that including self-identification in
linear regression models increased the predictive power of the models for
several combinations of neurodivergent conditions and thinking patterns. In
particular, inclusion of self-identification increased the predictive power of
the positive correlations between ADD and avoidant decision making (e.g.
putting off making decisions as long as possible), between ADHD and spontaneous
decision making, between dyslexia and visual cognitive style, and between high
giftedness and deliberate reasoning. Self-identification also increased the
predictive power of the negative correlations between autism and intuitive
decision making and between dyslexia and verbal cognitive style.
The researchers conclude that self-identification and formal
diagnosis can be correlated with the same thinking patterns and that inclusion
of self-identified individuals in the study of neurodivergent thinking patterns
may sometimes be appropriate. They note that self-identification rates may more
accurately reflect the prevalence of neurodivergent conditions: formal
diagnosis is often unavailable or is not sought because of concern over the
stigma attached to neurodivergent conditions or because formal diagnosis is
sometimes less accurate than self-identification.
Further Exploration
Based on my personal experience and casual reading, I’m not
surprised that people who self-identified with neurodivergent conditions had
variations in thinking patterns along the same lines as those with formal
diagnoses. In particular, self-diagnosis of autism is accepted by many members
of the autistic community, and it’s not uncommon for clinicians to rule out
diagnosis for people who have strong communication skills, are married, work
full-time, are Black or Latinx, or are female or trans (see https://www.verywellmind.com/self-diagnosis-according-to-an-autistic-psychologist-8650879.)
At the same time, I have some uncertainty about the
questionnaires used to assess thinking patterns. I found the decision-making
style assessment online (see https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fs57e3f70e36f4dc05.jimcontent.com%2Fdownload%2Fversion%2F1561360698%2Fmodule%2F9817879385%2Fname%2FGeneral%2520Decision%2520Making%2520Style%2520Questionnaire.pdf&psig=AOvVaw0v2gIyS8w7tgPNXRquHxqD&ust=1743681032881000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CAQQn5wMahcKEwiAm_KVpLmMAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA.)
When I tried it myself, I experienced tension between my desire to answer accurately
and my sense of what the assessment is looking for.
The first question
reads “I make sure that I have all the facts before I make a decision.” I realize
that they don’t mean every fact in the universe, and they probably don’t mean
facts that I might care about but that would be really hard to find out, but I’m
still really unsure what counts as “all the facts.” Given that level of ambiguity,
I’d choose the answer “The statement is sometimes true. It depends on the situation,”
but I’d be inclined to give that answer for almost all the questions because it
always depends on the situation. I wonder how much research has been done on neurodivergent
information processing for this kind of psychological assessments, but that’s a
rabbit hole for another day!
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Noun_questions_1325510.svg
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be nice.