Translate "Deficits" into Affirming Descriptions

Many parents of gifted and twice-exceptional kids seek out a professional assessment at some point, either through their school district or a private assessment provider. Parents seek an assessment for many reasons, but usually one of their major motivators is that they want to understand their kid better.

 

Unfortunately, a lot of assessment experiences can be disappointing and feel disheartening because the process focuses too much on the concept of "deficits".

​

Most assessment providers have been trained to frame neurodivergent characteristics in terms of deficits, and many assessment reports reflect this framing. It doesn't help that special education eligibility criteria and the DSM-V diagnostic criteria frame neurological differences in terms of deficits instead of simply describing differences.

​

Many families I work with have learned through an assessment that their gifted kid is autistic, dyslexic, or an ADHDer, but they aren't sure how to talk with their kid about the new diagnosis. Many of these parents received a report full of deficit-focused language and unsurprisingly, they feel unsure how to approach the conversation in a way that will feel good for their kid and not feel negative, shaming, or deficit-focused!

​

For many parents, the first step in preparing for a conversation with their kid is to learn more about their kid's diagnosis in an affirming way so they can feel good about the diagnosis and more excited to share the information with their kid.

​

So, I created a resource to help you reframe "deficit"-focused assessment results in more affirming and celebratory language.

​

In the table below, you'll see three columns.

​

The first column names a neutral neurodivergent characteristic.

​

The second column shows some examples of deficit-focused language frequently applied to each neurodivergent characteristic. If your kid has been assessed, you may recognize some of this language from their assessment report or from your conversation with the assessment provider. I've seen this type of language often in reports (and I was trained to write my own assessment reports this way). This deficit-focused language isn't neutral or factual, though - it's based on assumptions of the pathology paradigm, which assumes that there's one right way to be and to function, and that any divergences from "typical" are bad or wrong.

​

The neurodiversity paradigm, in contrast, recognizes that the diversity of human minds and bodies is a natural facet of human diversity. (I've written about the pathology paradigm and neurodiversity paradigm before if you'd like to learn more.)

​

In line with the neurodiversity paradigm, the third column reframes each neurodivergent characteristic in a neutral or positive way. I've tried to use language that may even resonate with a 2e kid or teen - descriptions they might recognize or feel happy to identify with.