‘Instruments are good at eliciting information; scores are very dangerous’: The perspectives of clinical professionals regarding neurodevelopmental assessment

Abstract

Clinical judgement is a crucial part of autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) assessments. This study aims to harness insights from psychology and sociology to explore clinical perspectives and assessment practices of autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Qualitative interviews were conducted with health care professionals (n = 17). Interviews were conducted between January and May 2019. Data were analysed using a thematic approach. Themes were sorted into two interrelated categories (1) approaches to diagnosis (2) elements of diagnosis. Approaches to diagnosis were comprised of the following subthemes: nature of diagnosis, application of diagnosis: natural and pragmatic, revisiting conceptualisations: sub-optimal practice & unhelpful diagnoses, autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Elements of diagnosis contained three related subthemes: contextualising standardised assessments, triangulating material, organisational factors. There is sometimes a pragmatic as well as nosological dimension to diagnosis. Competing desires for consistency and utility add further complexity to neurodevelopmental assessment. Lay abstract Autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are common behaviourally diagnosed conditions. One of the key aspects of diagnosis is clinical judgement. Yet despite decades of research, it is only in recent times that researchers have started exploring clinicians’ perspectives on diagnosing these conditions. We aimed to add to this body of knowledge by conducting interviews with 17 experienced health care professionals in the United Kingdom to hear their perspectives on diagnosing autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Clinicians reflected that for some children and young people, diagnosis is reasonably straightforward; however, in other situations, decisions are made on more pragmatic grounds (i.e. will this be helpful). We identified some differences of opinion between professionals and organisation which adds to the complexity of applying a diagnosis. We recommend several areas for future research and point to some practical and philosophical implications of the work.