PDA Diagnostic Criteria

1. Passive early history in first year

Often doesn’t reach, drops toys, ‘just watches’; often delayed milestones. As more is expected of him/her, child becomes ‘actively passive’, i.e. strongly objects to normal demands, resists. A few actively resist from the start, everything is on own terms. Parents tend to adapt so completely that they are unprepared for the extent of failure once child is subjected to ordinary group demands of nursery or school; they realise child needs ‘velvet gloves’ but don’t perceive as abnormal. Professionals too see child as puzzling but normal at first.

 2. Continues to resist and avoid ordinary demands of life

Seems to feel under intolerable pressure from normal expectations of young children; devotes self to actively avoiding these. Demand avoidance may seem the greatest social and cognitive skill, and most obsessional preoccupation. As language develops, strategies of avoidance are essentially socially manipulative, often adapted to adult involved; they may include:

  • Distracting adult: ‘Look out of the window!’, ‘I’ve got you a flower!’, ‘I love your necklace!’, ‘I’m going to be sick’, ‘Bollocks! – I said bollocks!’
  • Acknowledging demand but excusing self: ‘I’m sorry, but I can’t’, ‘I’m afraid I’ve got to do this first’, ‘I’d rather do this’, ‘I don’t have to, you can’t make me’, ‘you do it, and I’ll …….’, ‘Mummy wouldn’t like me to’.
  • Physically incapacitating self: hides under table, curls up in corner, goes limp, dissolves in tears, drops everything, seems unable to look in direction of task (though retains eye contact), removes clothes or glasses, ‘I’m too hot’, ‘I’m too tired’, ‘It’s too late now’, ‘I’m handicapped’, ‘I’m going blind/deaf/spastic’, ‘my hands have gone flat’.
  • Withdrawing into fantasy, doll play, animal play: talks only to doll or to inanimate objects; appeals to doll, ‘My girls won’t let me do that’, ‘My teddy doesn’t like this game’; ‘But I’m a tractor, tractors don’t have hands’; growls, bites.
  • Reducing meaningful conversation: bombards adult with speech (or other noises, eg humming) to drown out demands; mimics purposefully; refuses to speak.
  • (As last resort) Outbursts, screaming, hitting, kicking; best construed as panic attack.

3. Surface sociability, but apparent lack of sense of social identity, pride or shame

At first sight normally sociable (has enough empathy to manipulate adults as shown in 2); but ambiguous (see 4) and without depth. No negotiation with other children, doesn’t identify with children as a category: the question ‘Does she know she’s a child?’ makes sense to parents, who recognise this as a major problem. Wants other children to admire, but usually shocks them by complete lack of boundaries. No sense of responsibility, not concerned with what is ‘fitting to her age’ (might pick fight with toddler). Despite social awareness, behaviour is uninhibited, eg unprovoked aggression, extreme giggling/inappropriate laughter or kicking/screaming in shop or classroom. Prefers adults but doesn’t recognise their status. Seems very naughty, but parents say ‘not naughty but confused’ and ‘it’s not that she can’t or won’t, but she can’t help won’t’ – parents at a loss, as are others. Praise, reward, reproof and punishment ineffective; behavioural approaches fail.

4. Lability of mood, impulsive, led by need to control

Switches from cuddling to thumping for no obvious reason; or both at once (‘I hate you’ while hugging, nipping while handholding). Very impetuous, has to follow impulse. Switching of mood may be response to perceived pressure; goes ‘over the top’ in protest or in fear reaction, or even in affection; emotions may seem like an ‘act’. Activity must be on child’s terms; can change mind in an instant if suspects someone else is exerting control. May apologise but re-offend at once, or totally deny the obvious. Teachers need great variety of strategies, not rule-based: novelty helps.

5. Comfortable in role play and pretending

Some appear to lose touch with reality. May take over second-hand roles as a convenient ‘way of being’, ie coping strategy. Many behave to other children like the teacher (thus seem bossy); may mimic and extend styles to suit mood, or to control events or people. Parents often confused about ‘who he really is’. May take charge of assessment in role of psychologist, or using puppets, which helps co-operation; may adopt style of baby, or of video character. Role play of ‘good person’ may help in school, but may divert attention from underachievement. Enjoys dolls/toy animals/domestic play. Copes with normal conventions of shared pretending. Indirect instruction helps.

6. Language delay, seems result of passivity

Good degree of catch-up, often sudden. Pragmatics not deeply disordered, good eye-contact (sometimes over-strong); social timing fair except when interrupted by avoidance; facial expression usually normal or over-vivacious. However, speech content usually odd or bizarre, even discounting demand-avoidant speech. Social mimicry more common than video mimicry; brief echoing in some. Repetitive questions used for distraction, but may signal panic.

7. Obsessive behaviour

Much or most of the behaviour described is carried out in an obsessive way, especially demand avoidance: as a result, most children show very low level achievement in school because motivation to avoid demands is so sustained, and because the child knows no boundaries to avoidance. Other obsessions tend to be social, ie to do with people and their characteristics; some obsessively blame or harass people they don’t like, or are overpowering in their liking for certain people; children may target other individual children.

8. Neurological Involvement

Soft neurological signs are seen in the form of clumsiness and physical awkwardness; crawling late or absent in more than half. Some have absences, fits or episodic dyscontrol. Not enough hard evidence as yet.
Some comparable involvement in autism; less in terms of crawling and episodic dyscontrol.

Professor Elizabeth Newson revised and refined her descriptions of the PDA profile as her research and clinical understanding grew.  This is the third revision of the criteria published by the Elizabeth Newson Centre in 2002 and subsequently included in the first peer-reviewed article of PDA in the Archives of Diseases in Childhood (Newson et al. 2003).

Autism East Midlands

One Response to PDA Diagnostic Criteria

  1. Pingback: Requesting an Out of Area Referral | PDA Guidance

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s