There is a lot of emphasis on data in the autism field, especially since Applied Behavior Analysis has a monopoly on the field right now (unfortunately). Everything is data driven, meaning that numbers must support everything. Success is measured in data. Research is (of course) measured by data. Intervention techniques soar or crash based on data.
So what happens when the data confuses people?
A recent study on autism prevalence in 4 year-olds is doing just that, because some of the data doesn’t make sense. For example, if the number of diagnosed kiddos below age 3 decreased in New Jersey, then why is the prevalence number increasing? One possibility is that the number of professionals trained to diagnose and treat autism is low and not increasing with the demand. Having been in three different metropolitan areas in the last 3 years (Bay Area, LA, and Palm Beach County), I can attest to this suggestion. There aren’t enough of us.
The link to an article about the study is below. New Jersey was one of the states examined because it appears to have the highest prevalence in the country right now, but also has a huge array of resources. They also said that because of this, NJ probably has the most accurate information in the study.