Verbal fluency and autism: Reframing current data through the lens of monotropism.

The purpose of this study was to reexamine research that used verbal fluency tasks to reinforce assumed deficits in word knowledge and retrieval in the autistic population. We identified seventeen articles that compared the performance of autistic and non-autistic people on verbal fluency measures and provided an interpretation of the observed performance. In this narrative review, we summarize many components of these studies, including a comprehensive account of how authors framed their research findings. Overall, results of the studies showed variation both between and within groups in terms of total number of correct words, how many subsequent words fell into subcategories, and how frequently participants switched between subcategories. Despite wide variation in findings across studies, authors consistently interpreted results as revealing or reinforcing autistic deficits. To contrast the deficit narrative, we offer an alternative interpretation of findings by considering how they could provide support for the autistic-led theory of monotropism. This alternative interpretation accounts for the inconsistencies in findings between studies, since wide individual variation in performance is an expected feature of the monotropic theory. We use our review as an exercise in reframing a body of literature from a neurodiversity-affirming perspective. We propose this as a case example and model for how autism research and clinical practice can move away from the consistent narrative of autism deficits that has pervaded our field for decades. Accordingly, we offer suggestions for future research and clinical practice.