Does Having Autism Impact One's Ability to Report Autistic Characteristics? A Comparison of Self, Informant, and Clinician Reports.
Much of the autism boom may be re-labeled ID, so rule out comorbid ID before you finalize any autism diagnosis.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team looked at U.S. special-education counts from 2000 to 2010.
They tracked how many children carried an autism label and how many carried an intellectual disability label.
The goal was to see if the autism boom is really just kids who once would have been called ID only.
What they found
Autism numbers rose 331 percent.
ID numbers dropped 64 percent.
The drop in ID almost matched the rise in autism, hinting that many kids simply got a new label.
How this fits with other research
García-Villamisar et al. (2017) looked at the same IDEA files and saw no ID drop in big states.
They say the autism surge is real, not a label swap—an apparent contradiction.
The difference is method: Hamish et al. used national totals, while D et al. checked state-by-state trends.
Hé lè ne et al. (2007) earlier showed the rise came from finding missed kids sooner, a view that fits both sides if better awareness also shifts labels.
Why it matters
For you at the assessment table, the takeaway is simple.
Always test for intellectual disability before you lock in an autism diagnosis.
If the child qualifies for both, note both.
This guards against writing goals that miss core cognitive delays and keeps your caseload picture honest.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pull the last three intakes and check if cognitive testing was done—schedule it if it wasn’t.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
While recent studies suggest a converging role for genetic factors towards risk for nosologically distinct disorders including autism, intellectual disability (ID), and epilepsy, current estimates of autism prevalence fail to take into account the impact of comorbidity of these disorders on autism diagnosis. We aimed to assess the effect of comorbidity on the diagnosis and prevalence of autism by analyzing 11 years (2000-2010) of special education enrollment data on approximately 6.2 million children per year. We found a 331% increase in the prevalence of autism from 2000 to 2010 within special education, potentially due to a diagnostic recategorization from frequently comorbid features such as ID. The decrease in ID prevalence equaled an average of 64.2% of the increase of autism prevalence for children aged 3-18 years. The proportion of ID cases potentially undergoing recategorization to autism was higher (P = 0.007) among older children (75%) than younger children (48%). Some US states showed significant negative correlations between the prevalence of autism compared to that of ID while others did not, suggesting state-specific health policy to be a major factor in categorizing autism. Further, a high frequency of autistic features was observed when individuals with classically defined genetic syndromes were evaluated for autism using standardized instruments. Our results suggest that current ascertainment practices are based on a single facet of autism-specific clinical features and do not consider associated comorbidities that may confound diagnosis. Longitudinal studies with detailed phenotyping and deep molecular genetic analyses are necessary to completely understand the cause of this complex disorder.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2026 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.b.32338