English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

When disability is defined by behavior, researchers and clinicians struggle to identify appropriate measures to assess clinical progress. Some choose the reduction or elimination of diagnostic traits, implicitly defining typical appearance as the goal of service provision. Such an approach often interferes with more meaningful, person-centered goals; causes harm to people with disabilities; and is unnecessary for dealing with traits that are intrinsically harmful or personally distressing, such as self-injury. Disability stakeholders should reevaluate outcome measures that seek to eliminate disability-related traits that are stigmatized but not harmful. Using autism and the emergent neurodiversity movement as a case study, this article explores ethical challenges in selecting outcome measures in behaviorally defined disability diagnoses.

When Disability Is Defined by Behavior, Outcome Measures Should Not Promote “Passing”