Asperger's syndrome: three cases and a discussion.

Szempruch et al. (1993) wrote up three real-life stories of people who met the Gillberg & Gillberg rules for Asperger’s syndrome.

The paper is a simple case series. It shows how each person acted, what tests they took, and how the team decided to help them.

No single profile fit all three cases. One person loved maps, another spoke like a professor, the third had panic attacks.

The authors warn that the label “Asperger’s” can feel fuzzy and that every plan must be built for that one person.

Channon et al. (2011) later tested adults with the same label in a lab task. They found that when blaming others, adults with Asperger’s lean extra hard on “Did you mean to do it?” even though their causal judgments look normal. This extends the 1993 picture by adding a clear mental habit you can watch for in session.

Van Hanegem et al. (2014) and Rivard et al. (2023) used cluster math on big samples to sort ASD kids by sensory or cognitive profiles. These studies succeed the 1993 stories by giving you numbers-based bins—like “sensory adaptive” or “postural inattentive”—that can guide where you start with stimuli or seating.

Qian et al. (2022) and Annunziata et al. (2023) also run case series, but they pair behavior with gene tests. Their method feels like the 1993 paper, yet they add a lab step you can copy: when a child’s look does not fit common ASD, order array-CGH.

The 1993 paper reminds you that “Asperger’s” is not one coat that fits all. Use the later cluster tools to pick sensory or cognitive targets, but keep the 1993 mindset: write a plan for this client, not the label. If the picture still feels murky, think gene screen plus blame-attribution probe to sharpen both medical and social teaching paths.