In the space of a few days, two pieces of mainstream media have sparked significant discussion within the neurodivergent community: Channel 4’s The Great ADHD Myth? and the BBC’s A split in the spectrum? The ongoing battle to define autism.
Both titles are provocative. Arguably, deliberately so.
Read in isolation, The Great ADHD Myth? could easily be interpreted as suggesting that ADHD itself might be a myth. Similarly, A split in the spectrum? immediately raises the possibility that our current understanding of autism is fundamentally flawed.
But when we move beyond the headlines, the conversations themselves are considerably more nuanced.
Neither discussion suggests that the difficulties experienced by autistic people or people with ADHD are imaginary, insignificant or undeserving of support. Instead, they raise questions about how we define neurodevelopmental conditions, where diagnostic boundaries should sit, and how we ensure that increasing recognition is accompanied by high-quality assessment.
Those are legitimate questions.
The problem with provocative headlines
Headlines are designed to attract attention. But when the subject is something as personal as neurodevelopmental diagnosis, the language we use matters.
For someone who has spent years struggling to understand why everyday life seems more difficult for them than for those around them, seeing ADHD described alongside the word “myth” can feel invalidating before they have watched a single minute of the programme.
For an autistic person who has finally found an explanation for lifelong differences, talk of “splitting the spectrum” may similarly feel as though the legitimacy of their diagnosis is being questioned.
Yet that isn’t really the most interesting conversation contained within either piece.
We should be able to question our diagnostic frameworks
Our understanding of autism and ADHD has changed enormously, and it should continue to evolve.
We now recognise presentations that historically went unnoticed, including people who mask their differences, women and girls, and those who may appear to function well externally while experiencing significant difficulties internally.
At the same time, increased awareness makes rigorous assessment more important, not less.
Autism and ADHD are both highly heterogeneous. Two people with the same diagnosis can have dramatically different strengths, difficulties and support needs. It is reasonable for researchers and clinicians to ask whether our current diagnostic frameworks capture that complexity as effectively as they could.
Questioning how we define a condition is not the same as questioning whether people’s experiences are real.
That distinction can easily become lost beneath a provocative headline.
Where we stand
At Gold Standard Psychological Assessments, we welcome thoughtful discussion about how autism and ADHD are understood and assessed.
We don’t believe good neuroaffirming practice means assuming that every person who identifies with autistic or ADHD characteristics should receive a diagnosis. Equally, diagnostic rigour should never mean dismissing someone’s experiences simply because their presentation doesn’t fit an outdated stereotype.
Our job as assessors is neither to confirm nor disprove a diagnosis. It is to understand the person in front of us.
That means considering developmental history, experiences across different settings, clinical observation, standardised measures, collateral information where appropriate, co-occurring conditions and alternative explanations.
Sometimes the conclusion is autism or ADHD. Sometimes it is both. Sometimes it is neither.
But the difficulties that brought someone to an assessment do not suddenly become less real because of the diagnostic conclusion.