When Neurodivergent Becomes a Catch-All, Science Gets Lost in Translation
When Neurodivergent Becomes a Catch-All, Science Gets Lost in Translation
Imagine walking into a clinic and being told you need a neurodivergent-friendly approach. Sounds progressive, right? But what does that actually mean? For someone with ADHD, it might mean strategies for focus and impulse control. For someone with depression, it could mean something entirely different. For a person with dyslexia, yet another set of needs. Now imagine a researcher lumping all these people into one study group called neurodivergent and drawing conclusions. Thats where things get messy.
A new review published in JAMA Psychiatry has sounded the alarm: the terms neurodiversity and neurodivergence are being used so inconsistently in mental health research that they may be muddying the scientific waters—and potentially compromising patient care.
The Problem With Umbrella Terms
Researchers from the University of Southampton, alongside an international team including experts with lived experience from ADHD Europe, Autism-Europe, and ADDISS UK, analyzed 134 studies involving more than 151,000 participants. Their finding? Neurodivergence was applied to more than a dozen different clinical diagnoses—everything from autism, ADHD, and dyslexia to depression, anxiety, and neurological conditions. One in five studies used the term without referencing any specific diagnosis at all. More than half didnt even bother to define it.
“Neuro-affirming language can promote inclusion and help us to understand shared systemic barriers,” says lead author Dr. Alessio Bellato. “Terms like neurodiversity and neurodivergence can also be useful in research focused on identity and lived experience… However, grouping different clinical profiles under broad umbrella terms—especially when such terms are not formally defined—risks obscuring possible unique patterns and mechanisms that may be critical for driving science forward.”
In other words, when you call everyone neurodivergent and call it a day, you lose the nuance that makes research useful. You cant tell if a treatment works for ADHD or if it just happened to help people with anxiety. You cant compare apples to oranges if youve thrown them all into the same basket and labeled it fruit.
Neurodiversity vs. Neurodivergence: Not Interchangeable
Heres a quick refresher, because even professionals sometimes get this wrong. Neurodiversity refers to the natural variation in how human brains function, think, learn, and process information. Its a population-level concept—like biodiversity. You wouldnt say “a child with biodiversity,” and you shouldnt say “a child with neurodiversity.” It describes the collective, not the individual.
Neurodivergent, on the other hand, describes an individual whose brain functioning differs from whats considered neurotypical. But heres the catch: its not clear how that difference is defined or measured. And that ambiguity is precisely the problem.
Professor Samuele Cortese, senior author of the paper, puts it plainly: “For clinical studies, we would generally encourage clarifying which specific clinical diagnoses were included. For example, if a study aims to assess a characteristic that is associated with ADHD but not autism, but the study sample is defined as neurodivergent without further specification, the study results may be difficult to interpret.”
Why This Matters Beyond the Lab
This isnt just an academic quibble. The language we use in research trickles down into clinical practice, schools, and workplaces. If a clinician reads a study about neurodivergent patients and assumes it applies to their autistic patient, but the study actually focused on depression, the care plan could miss the mark. If a school implements a neurodivergent-friendly policy based on vague research, it might overlook the specific needs of a dyslexic student versus an ADHD student.
“Language is important for communication between patients, clinicians and other stakeholders involved in the care of patients,” Cortese adds. “However, if the same term—such as neurodivergence—is interpreted differently, important misunderstandings may arise that could affect the care the patient receives.”
The review also found that 50 studies asked participants to self-identify as neurodivergent or neurodiverse rather than using a formal clinical diagnosis. While self-identification can be valid for identity-focused research, it adds another layer of ambiguity when the goal is to understand specific clinical conditions. And in some cases, studies used definitions that were simply inaccurate—especially for neurodivergence.
The Push for Precision
The researchers arent arguing against the terms themselves. They acknowledge that neurodiversity and neurodivergence have been powerful tools for advocacy, helping to combat stigma and promote inclusion. They can be useful when studying shared experiences, systemic barriers, or identity. But when it comes to clinical research, precision is non-negotiable.
The takeaway? If youre conducting research, specify the diagnoses youre studying. If youre reading research, check whether the term neurodivergent is defined and which conditions are included. If youre a clinician or educator, dont assume a one-size-fits-all approach based on a catch-all label. Ask questions. Dig deeper.
Because the brain is complex. People are complex. And science—if its going to help anyone—needs to reflect that complexity, not flatten it into a buzzword. The next time you hear neurodivergent, ask yourself: which neurodivergence are we actually talking about? The answer might change everything.
Autorius
Mike Brown
Mike Brown – One of those authors who helps readers not get lost in today's news flow. He dives into political affairs as well as world events, social trends, and everyday stories that matter to everyone. The main focus of his work is fact-checking, clear language, and the ability to lay out the key points so that the reader gets a comprehensive and reliable picture of the topic in just a few minutes.
Related Articles
Comments
No comments yet.