![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD) is a subset of Neurodevelopmental Disorders (ND). PDD (or Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)) is not the same as a Neurodevelopmental Disorder (ND) which also includes genetic-based disorders (such as Down Syndrome or Williams Syndrome), learning/cognitive disorders (such as Learning Disorders (LD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)), as well as environmentally induced disorders (such as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) or Lead Poisoning). Please do <not> lump ND as a kind of PDD. ND is the superorderinate category underwhich PDD is typically placed.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguyinblue ( talk • contribs)
I agree. mixing PDD and other neurodevolopmental disorders is like saying schizophrenia is the same as depression. In both case, we have no clear idea of the causes of the disorders, a battle raging between experts as to know wether it's genetic or environmental, or both and to what degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernova 6969 ( talk • contribs)
Can you include the Neurodiverse angle in these 'arguments' please? They have all been written from a medical angle and blame those with the conditions on society rather than the other way round. The constant use of 'disorder' suggests that the world is ruled my neurotypicals and needs to be balanced. AsparagusTips ( talk) 07:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Why do you feel the "neurodiverse" angle should be included in an encyclopaedic article? It makes more sense for encyclopaedic content to adhere to the broadly agreed medical opinion, not personal preferences - Piers39293 ( talk) 08:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe ADHD should not be listed under "Genetic disorders" (under "Definitions and types"), as the cause for ADHD is currently not known, as per my understanding. Also, as per the ADHD Wikipedia article: "...the exact cause is unknown in the majority of cases." [1]
There is a quote at the end of the text here with no opening quote I can see. Further, the link is dead, so I am going to zap it for now. -- DanielCD 19:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I consider this article too important to languish as a stub. As far as I can tell it is a good start class article. Editors may compare my edit today to previous version and will see that I tried to save verifiable material. I tried to address the concerns expressed in the first comment above, by User:Theguyinblue This article needs better external resources, more instances of causative agents, and better readability. I believe it needs to be put in more categories as well but I don't normally edit similar articles so don't have a clue as to which would be appropriate. Regards. Trilobitealive ( talk) 22:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the nasty edit conflict, I think it's fixed now. I think we're in more of an expanding than copy editing stage right now, so I'll let up with that. Here are some of my thoughts on the article so far:
It's a good start! I think adding references to reliable sources is the most important thing. Good work so far. delldot talk 20:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm having trouble coming up with a suitably referenced definition/classification scheme, otherwise I've made a start on the other points. I've tried to winnow out more of the fringe stuff but probably need another viewpoint at this time. (Article is roughly twice the length as when you put up these points). I thought about a section on diagnosis and evaluation, but that would drift more toward neuropsychological evaluation technobabble. There is enough of that already. Trilobitealive ( talk) 03:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The section deletion of Cultural and historical information: was by me, done at work on an office computer which sometimes kicks me off the Wikipedia logon. I think that this section needs expansion and re-inclusion once it can be made to not violate WP:DUE but that is for another day. Trilobitealive ( talk) 17:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Coming along very well! Excellent progress. Some suggestions:
Overall, it's coming along great, it's certainly a lot farther along than when I last looked at it! I think the biggest thing to focus on would be nailing down that definition; the reader gets a good idea of the variety of things that can cause the disorders, but only a fuzzy idea of what they are. A classification section would be good if possible, and also sections that cover common features of each (e.g. "Diagnosis", "Treatment"). These would have to be vague, but they could cover common techniques and give a better idea of what these disorders have in common with one another. Other suggestions are in WP:MEDMOS. delldot talk 00:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I wonder whether a more representative picture could be found? As far as I know, it isn't clear that Asperger's syndrome (high-functioning autism) should be classified as a developmental disorder (the neural basis is unknown). Looie496 ( talk) 20:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
[[Image:IMGP2147.JPG|thumb|300px|right|A person with microcephaly]]moved photo Trilobitealive ( talk) 00:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of this image, from Wikipedia commons? It shows a person with microcephaly (small brain), which is clearly a neurodevelopmental disorder. Anyway, this isn't really my area, but I'll give the article a once-over to see if anything pops out at me. Looie496 ( talk) 02:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
[[Image:Fasbabyface.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Fetal alcohol syndrome]]moved photo Trilobitealive ( talk) 00:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I recommend this image for fetal alcohol syndrome. — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs) 02:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the autism spectrum page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.93.212 ( talk) 16:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC) It looks to me like User:Eubulides made it into a redirect page. You might want to discuss it with him/her. Trilobitealive ( talk) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thnak you
where did he get the ability to do such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matsuiny2004 ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Does this article cover the ICD Q00-Q07? And if yes, maybe some infobox should be added, or it should be otherwise somehow mentioned? -- CopperKettle 09:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I've been building a page loosely organized on Smith's Recognizable Patterns of Malformation (It's roughed out on my Talk page) and was wondering how I could "interface" with this article. This is a very nicely written article, but my strengths are in list-building, especially with regards to developmental medicine. Any ideas? doctorwolfie ( talk) 12:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Kokuvi with microcephaly at the Volta School for the Mentally Challenged.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
So why do I find this article moved from Neurodevelopmental disorder to Neurodevelopmental condition with no warning, no discussion and no consensus? Trilobitealive ( talk) 18:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neurodevelopmental disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I undid a change where the entire en.wiki article was changed to Spanish. I can't see if this has been done before, but perhaps the author who made the change could explain why this was done. Is there a need for article protection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piers39293 ( talk • contribs) 08:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The wording is weird mainly the usage of "includes"( the verb to include) does not necessarily mean we have exhausted all known and researched items as such is not a thorough list at all it is a very poor work. currently considered neurodevelopmental are definetely of one of these types; Does not mean we are wrong. Currently at the present level of medical science and research there are not any more known. These are the only types. Tomorrow some researcher might find something new we are not at fault we are not wrong. For someone reading an encyclopedia the writers should really put more effort to exhaust any and all research published in the medical science and related fields. Ntoulinho ( talk) 04:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)§
A new editor and IP (clearly the same person) is edit warring Nonverbal learning disorder into the article as a neurodevelopmental disorder despite the fact that NVLD has no official status with either ICD or DSM-5. Sundayclose ( talk) 20:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
If you're accepting the DSM/IDC as the absolute authority of what is and is not formal recognition, then why not just say 'formally recognized by the DSM/IDC.' If clinicians, educators researchers world-wide use the term, notwithstanding the DSM, why not "widely"? Asmith1992 ( talk) 22:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
"identified by some" understates the weight of scientific opinion ("Nonverbal learning disorder is not categorized in the IDC or DSM as an discrete classification but is identified by some clinicians, educators and researchers"). I propose (direct quote): " 'The majority of researchers and clinicians agree that the profile of NLD clearly exists...but they disagree on the need for a specific clinical category and on the criteria for its identification.' " [1]
Stating the fact that it is a *majority* opinion is truthful and important, and does not undercut the DSM's putative consensus definition. Asmith1992 ( talk) 18:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Mammarella, Irene C.; Cornoldi, Cesare (4 May 2014). "An analysis of the criteria used to diagnose children with Nonverbal Learning Disability (NLD)". Child Neuropsychology. 20 (3): 255–280, 256. doi:10.1080/09297049.2013.796920. ISSN 0929-7049. PMID 23705673. (page 256). Asmith1992 ( talk) 01:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
References
I agree, there is no real medical or scientific research to support this article. Autism and ADHD has nothing to do neurodevelopment disorders. Simply put this article should be scrubbed as it has the potential to misinform an enormous public and new generation of wellness advisors to the abilities or disabilities of at least 20% of the worlds population. It also misinforms to what actual neurodevelopment disorders are and the potential people with these disorders truly have. There has got to be a better system in place for actual facts verses public opinion on Wikipedia as the sad fact is you now carry a greater responsibility of the real well researched encyclopedias of yore. 86.31.122.93 ( talk) 03:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Currently the "Types" section states that "According to the DSM V, the neurodevelopmental disorders include the following:" Firstly, it should be DSM-5 by convention (we use Roman numerals for the first through fourth editions, Arabic numerals from the fifth edition onwards). Secondly, the eleventh type listened is OCD, which does not even appear in the cited source at all, nor is it classified as a neurodevelopmental disorder in the DSM-5. I am unsure what other inaccuracies there are, but the DSM-5 chapter on neurodevelopmental disorders contains the following groups of disorders: Intellectual disabilities; Communication disorders; Autism spectrum disorder; ADHD; Specific learning disorder; Motor disorders. There is no mention at all of things like OCD or fragile X syndrome in this chapter. Obsessive-compulsive and related disorders have their own chapter. It is also worth noting that the DSM-5 chapters are in a logical order (e.g. they state that the chapter on bipolar-type disorders is between the chapters on psychotic disorders and mood disorders to represent its theoretical position between those groups) and the obsessive-compulsive and related disorders do not come immediately after the neurodevelopmental disorders, so the DSM-5 does not even hint at there being a relationship between these groups, let alone OCD being a neurodevelopmental disorder itself. I shall remove OCD from this list but am unsure how to go about fixing this section so will not make any further edits without more discussion. Anditres ( talk) 22:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD) is a subset of Neurodevelopmental Disorders (ND). PDD (or Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)) is not the same as a Neurodevelopmental Disorder (ND) which also includes genetic-based disorders (such as Down Syndrome or Williams Syndrome), learning/cognitive disorders (such as Learning Disorders (LD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)), as well as environmentally induced disorders (such as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) or Lead Poisoning). Please do <not> lump ND as a kind of PDD. ND is the superorderinate category underwhich PDD is typically placed.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguyinblue ( talk • contribs)
I agree. mixing PDD and other neurodevolopmental disorders is like saying schizophrenia is the same as depression. In both case, we have no clear idea of the causes of the disorders, a battle raging between experts as to know wether it's genetic or environmental, or both and to what degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernova 6969 ( talk • contribs)
Can you include the Neurodiverse angle in these 'arguments' please? They have all been written from a medical angle and blame those with the conditions on society rather than the other way round. The constant use of 'disorder' suggests that the world is ruled my neurotypicals and needs to be balanced. AsparagusTips ( talk) 07:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Why do you feel the "neurodiverse" angle should be included in an encyclopaedic article? It makes more sense for encyclopaedic content to adhere to the broadly agreed medical opinion, not personal preferences - Piers39293 ( talk) 08:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe ADHD should not be listed under "Genetic disorders" (under "Definitions and types"), as the cause for ADHD is currently not known, as per my understanding. Also, as per the ADHD Wikipedia article: "...the exact cause is unknown in the majority of cases." [1]
There is a quote at the end of the text here with no opening quote I can see. Further, the link is dead, so I am going to zap it for now. -- DanielCD 19:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I consider this article too important to languish as a stub. As far as I can tell it is a good start class article. Editors may compare my edit today to previous version and will see that I tried to save verifiable material. I tried to address the concerns expressed in the first comment above, by User:Theguyinblue This article needs better external resources, more instances of causative agents, and better readability. I believe it needs to be put in more categories as well but I don't normally edit similar articles so don't have a clue as to which would be appropriate. Regards. Trilobitealive ( talk) 22:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the nasty edit conflict, I think it's fixed now. I think we're in more of an expanding than copy editing stage right now, so I'll let up with that. Here are some of my thoughts on the article so far:
It's a good start! I think adding references to reliable sources is the most important thing. Good work so far. delldot talk 20:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm having trouble coming up with a suitably referenced definition/classification scheme, otherwise I've made a start on the other points. I've tried to winnow out more of the fringe stuff but probably need another viewpoint at this time. (Article is roughly twice the length as when you put up these points). I thought about a section on diagnosis and evaluation, but that would drift more toward neuropsychological evaluation technobabble. There is enough of that already. Trilobitealive ( talk) 03:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The section deletion of Cultural and historical information: was by me, done at work on an office computer which sometimes kicks me off the Wikipedia logon. I think that this section needs expansion and re-inclusion once it can be made to not violate WP:DUE but that is for another day. Trilobitealive ( talk) 17:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Coming along very well! Excellent progress. Some suggestions:
Overall, it's coming along great, it's certainly a lot farther along than when I last looked at it! I think the biggest thing to focus on would be nailing down that definition; the reader gets a good idea of the variety of things that can cause the disorders, but only a fuzzy idea of what they are. A classification section would be good if possible, and also sections that cover common features of each (e.g. "Diagnosis", "Treatment"). These would have to be vague, but they could cover common techniques and give a better idea of what these disorders have in common with one another. Other suggestions are in WP:MEDMOS. delldot talk 00:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I wonder whether a more representative picture could be found? As far as I know, it isn't clear that Asperger's syndrome (high-functioning autism) should be classified as a developmental disorder (the neural basis is unknown). Looie496 ( talk) 20:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
[[Image:IMGP2147.JPG|thumb|300px|right|A person with microcephaly]]moved photo Trilobitealive ( talk) 00:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of this image, from Wikipedia commons? It shows a person with microcephaly (small brain), which is clearly a neurodevelopmental disorder. Anyway, this isn't really my area, but I'll give the article a once-over to see if anything pops out at me. Looie496 ( talk) 02:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
[[Image:Fasbabyface.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Fetal alcohol syndrome]]moved photo Trilobitealive ( talk) 00:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I recommend this image for fetal alcohol syndrome. — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs) 02:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the autism spectrum page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.93.212 ( talk) 16:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC) It looks to me like User:Eubulides made it into a redirect page. You might want to discuss it with him/her. Trilobitealive ( talk) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thnak you
where did he get the ability to do such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matsuiny2004 ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Does this article cover the ICD Q00-Q07? And if yes, maybe some infobox should be added, or it should be otherwise somehow mentioned? -- CopperKettle 09:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I've been building a page loosely organized on Smith's Recognizable Patterns of Malformation (It's roughed out on my Talk page) and was wondering how I could "interface" with this article. This is a very nicely written article, but my strengths are in list-building, especially with regards to developmental medicine. Any ideas? doctorwolfie ( talk) 12:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Kokuvi with microcephaly at the Volta School for the Mentally Challenged.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
So why do I find this article moved from Neurodevelopmental disorder to Neurodevelopmental condition with no warning, no discussion and no consensus? Trilobitealive ( talk) 18:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neurodevelopmental disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I undid a change where the entire en.wiki article was changed to Spanish. I can't see if this has been done before, but perhaps the author who made the change could explain why this was done. Is there a need for article protection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piers39293 ( talk • contribs) 08:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The wording is weird mainly the usage of "includes"( the verb to include) does not necessarily mean we have exhausted all known and researched items as such is not a thorough list at all it is a very poor work. currently considered neurodevelopmental are definetely of one of these types; Does not mean we are wrong. Currently at the present level of medical science and research there are not any more known. These are the only types. Tomorrow some researcher might find something new we are not at fault we are not wrong. For someone reading an encyclopedia the writers should really put more effort to exhaust any and all research published in the medical science and related fields. Ntoulinho ( talk) 04:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)§
A new editor and IP (clearly the same person) is edit warring Nonverbal learning disorder into the article as a neurodevelopmental disorder despite the fact that NVLD has no official status with either ICD or DSM-5. Sundayclose ( talk) 20:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
If you're accepting the DSM/IDC as the absolute authority of what is and is not formal recognition, then why not just say 'formally recognized by the DSM/IDC.' If clinicians, educators researchers world-wide use the term, notwithstanding the DSM, why not "widely"? Asmith1992 ( talk) 22:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
"identified by some" understates the weight of scientific opinion ("Nonverbal learning disorder is not categorized in the IDC or DSM as an discrete classification but is identified by some clinicians, educators and researchers"). I propose (direct quote): " 'The majority of researchers and clinicians agree that the profile of NLD clearly exists...but they disagree on the need for a specific clinical category and on the criteria for its identification.' " [1]
Stating the fact that it is a *majority* opinion is truthful and important, and does not undercut the DSM's putative consensus definition. Asmith1992 ( talk) 18:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Mammarella, Irene C.; Cornoldi, Cesare (4 May 2014). "An analysis of the criteria used to diagnose children with Nonverbal Learning Disability (NLD)". Child Neuropsychology. 20 (3): 255–280, 256. doi:10.1080/09297049.2013.796920. ISSN 0929-7049. PMID 23705673. (page 256). Asmith1992 ( talk) 01:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
References
I agree, there is no real medical or scientific research to support this article. Autism and ADHD has nothing to do neurodevelopment disorders. Simply put this article should be scrubbed as it has the potential to misinform an enormous public and new generation of wellness advisors to the abilities or disabilities of at least 20% of the worlds population. It also misinforms to what actual neurodevelopment disorders are and the potential people with these disorders truly have. There has got to be a better system in place for actual facts verses public opinion on Wikipedia as the sad fact is you now carry a greater responsibility of the real well researched encyclopedias of yore. 86.31.122.93 ( talk) 03:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Currently the "Types" section states that "According to the DSM V, the neurodevelopmental disorders include the following:" Firstly, it should be DSM-5 by convention (we use Roman numerals for the first through fourth editions, Arabic numerals from the fifth edition onwards). Secondly, the eleventh type listened is OCD, which does not even appear in the cited source at all, nor is it classified as a neurodevelopmental disorder in the DSM-5. I am unsure what other inaccuracies there are, but the DSM-5 chapter on neurodevelopmental disorders contains the following groups of disorders: Intellectual disabilities; Communication disorders; Autism spectrum disorder; ADHD; Specific learning disorder; Motor disorders. There is no mention at all of things like OCD or fragile X syndrome in this chapter. Obsessive-compulsive and related disorders have their own chapter. It is also worth noting that the DSM-5 chapters are in a logical order (e.g. they state that the chapter on bipolar-type disorders is between the chapters on psychotic disorders and mood disorders to represent its theoretical position between those groups) and the obsessive-compulsive and related disorders do not come immediately after the neurodevelopmental disorders, so the DSM-5 does not even hint at there being a relationship between these groups, let alone OCD being a neurodevelopmental disorder itself. I shall remove OCD from this list but am unsure how to go about fixing this section so will not make any further edits without more discussion. Anditres ( talk) 22:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)