Harold Robert Meyer
Reviewed: September 18, 2026 · Published: September 18, 2026
A new scoping review shows even the researchers who study the term can’t agree what it means. That’s the problem I’ve had with it for years.
I don’t use the word “neurodivergent” in my own writing. Not for political reasons, and not because I object to how anyone chooses to describe themselves — I don’t. My objection is narrower: the word has stopped doing the one job language is supposed to do, which is tell you something specific.
Key Takeaway: A JAMA Psychiatry scoping review of 134 studies covering more than 151,000 participants found “neurodivergent” applied across roughly twenty different clinical diagnoses — evidence that the term has outrun its usefulness as a clinical or research category, and a reason I stick to diagnosis-specific language like “ADHD” in ADDRC’s writing.
Key Findings
- The scoping review, published September 17, 2026 in JAMA Psychiatry, examined 134 studies with 151,000+ participants and found “neurodivergent” or “neurodiverse” applied across roughly twenty distinct clinical diagnoses.
- According to the research summary that flagged this study to me, one in five of the included studies used the term without naming any diagnosis at all, and 50 of the 134 relied on self-identification rather than a clinical diagnosis. I was not able to independently confirm these two specific figures against the paper itself — noted below.
- The study was funded by the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). The authors published their own plain-language summary the same day, syndicated across several science-news outlets.
Here’s why the distinction matters to me. ADHD has diagnostic criteria, decades of treatment research, and medications and behavioral interventions with documented effect sizes. When I write about ADHD, I can point to something concrete — a reader can take that word to a doctor and get somewhere. “Neurodivergent” doesn’t do that. It’s the word this new review shows even researchers can’t pin down: the authors set out to map which diagnoses people actually mean when they write it, and found something closer to a mood than a category — autism and ADHD anchor most of the usage, but the umbrella has stretched to take in dyslexia, dyspraxia, Tourette syndrome, OCD, and, in a fifth of the studies by the brief’s count, nothing named at all.
I understand the word’s original appeal. It was built to reframe conditions like autism and ADHD as differences in wiring rather than defects to be cured, and to build solidarity among people who’d spent their lives being told something was wrong with them. That project mattered, and I don’t dismiss it. But a word that starts as a banner for solidarity and ends up as a catch-all for “any brain that isn’t average” has drifted past the point where it can carry clinical weight — and the cost of that drift lands specifically on the person with ADHD, who loses the very specificity (stimulant response rates, working-memory research, a documented course through childhood and adulthood) that makes the diagnosis actionable in the first place. A parent who reads that their child is “neurodivergent” learns less than a parent who reads that their child has ADHD. One of those words points toward help. The other is a category the reader still has to decode.
The label is supposed to serve the person, not the other way around. When a word gets vague enough to include almost anyone, it stops helping the one person standing in front of you who needs a specific answer.
None of this is an argument against identity or community language — people are entitled to describe themselves however they choose. It’s an argument about what belongs in clinical writing, research, and the kind of guidance ADDRC exists to give. In those spaces, I’ll keep writing “ADHD,” because that’s the word that actually tells you what you’re dealing with, and what to do about it.
The next step: If you’re reading an article, a school report, or a clinical note that uses “neurodivergent” without naming a diagnosis, ask the plain follow-up question: divergent from what, and diagnosed as what? The answer usually points you toward the more useful word.
Synopsis
A JAMA Psychiatry scoping review of 134 studies and 151,000+ participants found the term “neurodivergent” applied across roughly twenty clinical diagnoses in the research literature. This editorial argues the term’s breadth costs readers the precision that a specific diagnosis like ADHD still provides, and explains why ADDRC’s own writing favors diagnosis-specific language over the broader umbrella term.
Topic: Research · Advocacy & Terminology
Audience: Adults with ADHD · Parents & Caregivers · Clinicians & Prescribers · Educators · Media
Keywords: neurodivergent, terminology, scoping review, diagnostic precision, ADHD
About the Author
Harold Robert Meyer founded The ADD Resource Center in 1993 and has spent more than thirty years translating the lived experience of ADHD into practical guidance for individuals, families, and the clinicians and educators who work with them. He co-founded CHADD of New York in 1989 and went on to serve on CHADD National’s board and executive committee, including as Vice President of Finance. He was later elected to lead the Institute for the Advancement of ADHD Coaching. An author and international speaker, he has presented at the American Psychiatric Association Annual Meeting, CHADD national and local conferences, NYU Langone, Mount Sinai Medical Center, and Weill Cornell Medical College. Reach him at [email protected].
📚 Come back often — we add new evidence-based ADHD resources daily.
The ADD Resource Center
[email protected] · +1 (646) 205-8080 · 127 West 83rd St., Unit 133, New York, NY 10024-0840 USA
X · LinkedIn · Facebook · Substack · Newsletter
Please consider the environment before printing.
Our content is educational and informational only – not medical, legal, financial, or other professional advice, nor a substitute for it, and should not be relied on as such. We strive for accuracy, but errors or omissions occur and information becomes outdated. Some content and images may be created with AI assistance and, though reviewed before publication, may contain inaccuracies. Our screening tools are not diagnostic instruments. Verify independently and consult a qualified professional before acting on anything here.
In the USA and Canada, call or text 988 anytime for free mental health and suicide prevention support, or call 911 if someone is in immediate danger. The ADD Resource Center is independent from these services and is not liable for any actions taken by you or by these services.
Under GDPR and CCPA, you may request access to, correction of, or deletion of your personal data at [email protected].
© 2026 The ADD Resource Center. All rights reserved.
Harold Robert Meyer, Founder, The ADD Resource Center · [email protected]