Is the concept of Demand Avoidance Phenomena (Pathological Demand Avoidance) real or mythical?

This is an updated presentation I gave to the Disability Research Forum at Sheffield Hallam University on 12th of December 2019. I have had this peer reviewed, but it was rejected mainly due to my writing style in the piece. I am planning on adapting it into a book chapter. This is a simple document analysis to conduct, please do replicate if you have a spare few hours. I would be interested if your results diverged significantly from myself. The updates to the powerpoint are mainly adding relevant material from more recent observations, especially around the diagnostic tools and proposed changes to DAP diagnostic criteria. Abstract (from rejected paper). The term Pathological Demand Avoidance (PDA) is increasingly associated with autistic persons, yet there is little consensus over what it means. PDA is often conceptualised as falling within the Broader Autism Phenotype (BAP). The autistic scholar Nick Chown (2019), investigating the BAP and Autistic traits constructs conducted a content analysis of their tools, to assess if any feature is specific (only located to each construct). His research suggests no characteristic is unique to either BAP or Autistic traits. I replicated Nick Chown’s study on 63 questions, drawn from the 3 validated tools for PDA. I assessed each item for if it portrays a feature that is unique to either autism or PDA, and then justified the answer. I found that no features assessed by the 63 questions are solely located in autism or PDA, instead these features are: (1); typically found in persons who are either highly distressed or the result of trauma; (2) acts any individuals utilises to assert their self-agency; (3) a minority of features are found in criminal activities. These results indicate that the notion PDA traits are an autism subtype is a reified construct and instead, PDA traits are more representative of the entire human population.