> And yet, the clinical standard has been to use the "with" terminology for a long time now. For exactly the general reason that you present, just with your grammatical paradigm inverted.
If that's the clinical standard, why didn't the cited paper use it that way? From the research paper:
> autistic individuals
> autistic employees
> autistic participants
The peer reviewed research paper uses this standard. Only using "with" in reference to diagnoses.
It is "Science Daily", a news site, who skirts the standard by changing the paper's wording.
If that's the clinical standard, why didn't the cited paper use it that way? From the research paper:
> autistic individuals
> autistic employees
> autistic participants
The peer reviewed research paper uses this standard. Only using "with" in reference to diagnoses.
It is "Science Daily", a news site, who skirts the standard by changing the paper's wording.