Proponents of autism intervention and those of the neurodiversity movement often appear at odds, the former advocating for intensive treatments and the latter arguing that autism must be accepted as a form of diversity. The history of behavioral intervention has understandably outraged many in the Autistic community, though many still value supports focused on quality of life. This commentary argues that Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Interventions (NDBIs) hold promise for bridging the gap between early intervention and the neurodiversity movement. However, we recognize NDBIs have much room to grow and suggest multiple strategies for improvement. We believe these updates are not only feasible for clinicians and researchers to implement but will ultimately lead to improved quality of life for Autistic individuals.

This paper presents the concepts of “neurodiversity” and the “neurodiversity approaches” towards disability. This paper discusses how confusion regarding the meaning of these concepts exacerbates debate and conflict surrounding the neurodiversity approaches. For example, some claim the neurodiversity approaches focus solely on society and denies contributions of individual characteristics to disability (a controversial stance), whereas this paper joins other literature in acknowledging the contributions of both individual and society to disability. This paper also addresses other controversies related to neurodiversity, such as uncertainty regarding the scope of the approaches – to whom do they apply? – and their implications for diagnostic categories. Finally, this paper provides recommendations for developmental researchers who wish to carry out neurodiversity-aligned research: scholars are urged to study both individual neurodivergent people and the contexts around them; to consider both strengths and weaknesses; to recognize their own biases; and to listen to and learn from neurodivergent people.

Many autistic people do not learn they are autistic until adulthood. Parents may wait to tell a child they are autistic until they feel the child is “ready.” In this study, a participatory team of autistic and non-autistic researchers examined whether learning one is autistic at a younger age is associated with heightened well-being and Autism-Specific Quality of Life among autistic university students. Autistic students ( n = 78) completed an online survey. They shared when and how they learned they were autistic, how they felt about autism when first learning they are autistic and now, and when they would tell autistic children about their autism. Learning one is autistic earlier was associated with heightened quality of life and well-being in adulthood. However, learning one is autistic at an older age was associated with more positive emotions about autism when first learning one is autistic. Participants expressed both positive and negative emotions about autism and highlighted contextual factors to consider when telling a child about autism. Findings suggest that telling a child that they are autistic at a younger age empowers them by providing access to support and a foundation for self-understanding that helps them thrive in adulthood. Lay abstract People learn they are autistic at different ages. We wanted to know if telling kids they are autistic earlier helps them feel better about their lives when they grow up. We are a team of autistic and non-autistic students and professors. Seventy-eight autistic university students did our online survey. They shared how they found out they were autistic and how they felt about being autistic. They also shared how they feel about their lives now. Around the same number of students learned they were autistic from doctors and parents. Students who learned they were autistic when they were younger felt happier about their lives than people who learned they were autistic when they were older. Students who learned they were autistic when they were older felt happier about being autistic when they first found out than people who did not have to wait as long. Our study shows that it is probably best to tell people they are autistic as soon as possible. The students who did our study did not think it was a good idea to wait until children are adults to tell them they are autistic. They said that parents should tell their children they are autistic in ways that help them understand and feel good about who they are.

Caregivers usually reach out to professionals because they are concerned about their child's behaviour or development. Their much beloved child does not seem to act the way other children do. Parents of autistic children, prior to that child's diagnosis, will have likely noted their child's delays in reaching typical developmental milestones, more frequent or intense behavioural dysregulation, and have general concerns around their child appearing 'different' (Crane et al., 2018). They may worry that their parenting choices are to blame for child's difficulties.Parents often feel intense distress akin to grief after their child receives an autism diagnosis (Abbott et al., 2013;Mulligan et al., 2012). Sinclair's (2012) iconic essay, Don't Mourn for Us, recognizes that many parents feel such grief because of their 'shattered expectations'. This grief is further fueled by the 'stories of autism' crafted for families by both professionals and popular media. The diagnostic entity of autism is a subjective construct used by society to interpret and categorize behaviour, affect and ways of thinking -a sort of story or narrative (Duffy & Dorner, 2011). The way we share this diagnostic story with families will guide their thinking about 'how to accommodate and respect autistic children -and how to love them . . . Or they help autistic[s] . . . understand themselves, [and learn] how to get on in a world of neurotypicals' (Hacking, 2009, p. 502). Dominant autism narratives, including those shared by the diagnostician at the initial diagnosis, will be heard and internalized by families, autistic children and society as a whole.Until recently, the diagnosis of autism has been framed from a deficit-based perspective as seen in diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) and the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11; World Health Organization, 2008), as well as theories that describe autism as fundamentally characterized by central deficits in social motivation (e.g. Chevallier et al., 2012), or other skills. Not only genetic (e.g. Bailey et al., 1995), but also environmental (e.g. Christensen et al., 2013) literature on the aetiology of autism frames challenges as deficits rooted in the autistic person. The result is that the medical model has created stories of autism in

Objective: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors like sertraline have been shown in observational studies and anecdotal reports to improve language development in young children with fragile X syndrome (FXS). A previous controlled trial of sertraline in young children with FXS found significant improvement in expressive language development as measured by the Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL) among those with comorbid autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in post hoc analysis, prompting the authors to probe whether sertraline is also indicated in nonsyndromic ASD. Methods: The authors evaluated the efficacy of 6 months of treatment with low-dose sertraline in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 58 children with ASD aged 24 to 72 months. Results: 179 subjects were screened for eligibility, and 58 were randomized to sertraline (32) or placebo (26). Eight subjects from the sertraline arm and five from the placebo arm discontinued. Intent-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference from placebo on the primary outcomes (MSEL expressive language raw score and age equivalent combined score) or secondary outcomes. Sertraline was well tolerated, with no difference in side effects between sertraline and placebo groups. No serious adverse events possibly related to study treatment occurred. Conclusion: This randomized controlled trial of sertraline treatment showed no benefit with respect to primary or secondary outcome measures. For the 6-month period, treatment in young children with ASD appears safe, although the long-term side effects of low-dose sertraline in early childhood are unknown. Clinical Trial Registration: , identifier NCT02385799.