Comments on: Perpetuating dis-therapies http://TeachEffectively.com/2005/05/25/perpetuating-dis-therapies/ Evidence-based teaching methods for helping students who are at risk for school failure or who have disabilities. Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:30:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: JohnL http://TeachEffectively.com/2005/05/25/perpetuating-dis-therapies/comment-page-1/#comment-69046 JohnL Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:59:30 +0000 http://johnl.edschool.virginia.edu/blogs/TeachEffectively/2005/05/25/51/#comment-69046 QIM, thanks for the comment. You're right in suggesting that FC looks suspicious. I hope you've investigated the research about FC and are fully aware that it shows that when the facilitator doesn't know the answer to questions that the facilitated individual would know, the communication is gibberish. What is your connection to UCSB? Meanwhile, in answer to my own question, I'm pleased to report that the National Standards Project has published a document that examines the evidence about well-known therapies. I've <a href="http://EBDBlog.com/2009/10/national-standards-project/" rel="nofollow">posted a note</a> about it over on <i>EBD Blog</i>. QIM, thanks for the comment. You’re right in suggesting that FC looks suspicious. I hope you’ve investigated the research about FC and are fully aware that it shows that when the facilitator doesn’t know the answer to questions that the facilitated individual would know, the communication is gibberish.

What is your connection to UCSB?

Meanwhile, in answer to my own question, I’m pleased to report that the National Standards Project has published a document that examines the evidence about well-known therapies. I’ve posted a note about it over on EBD Blog.

]]> By: QIM http://TeachEffectively.com/2005/05/25/perpetuating-dis-therapies/comment-page-1/#comment-3443 QIM Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:06:37 +0000 http://johnl.edschool.virginia.edu/blogs/TeachEffectively/2005/05/25/51/#comment-3443 While it is noble to be as scientfic as possible with autism interventions, my many years of working with autistics made it clear that was impossible. There aren't any scientifically valid interventions for autism. You mentioned discreet trials. I used them ad nauseum and they did little good with the adult autistics and studies also don't validate it for the younger autistics. Most interventions do help in the sense they are structured and positive. Autistics like both and may show some positive behavior change just for that reason. Most of the day with autistics there are no scientific interventions used. The best intervention I used by far was the most controversial of the iinterventions, facilitated communication (FC). I know how it looks and I know all about the double blinds and can understand folks being skeptical. But for those who have used it and seen the positive dynamics it creates and increased "choice and control" either with FC or other "augmentative communication" like picture books, FC was an absolute boon to our programming and I never saw such positive behavior change (well measured ICF program) in my 30 years working with autistics. Plus, they were really saying all those things folks were getting from FC. How true the content of their communication was or what it all meant, well, until we use FC more and study it then we won't know...will we? It's also harmless, and even if it wasn't valid, it has great therapeutic spin offs. In autism that is the bottom line for workers. For those who don't work with them directly like researchers, pros and skeptics, they can affford to be skeptical and diss the intervention. The folks closest to autistics can't afford that luxury and that is why all parents and workers insist on using whatever "works". However, even most of them have been affected by the controversy and skeptics and aren't using FC. It is a HUGE tragedy. Tom Smith While it is noble to be as scientfic as possible with autism interventions, my many years of working with autistics made it clear that was impossible. There aren’t any scientifically valid interventions for autism. You mentioned discreet trials. I used them ad nauseum and they did little good with the adult autistics and studies also don’t validate it for the younger autistics.

Most interventions do help in the sense they are structured and positive. Autistics like both and may show some positive behavior change just for that reason. Most of the day with autistics there are no scientific interventions used.

The best intervention I used by far was the most controversial of the iinterventions, facilitated communication (FC). I know how it looks and I know all about the double blinds and can understand folks being skeptical. But for those who have used it and seen the positive dynamics it creates and increased “choice and control” either with FC or other “augmentative communication” like picture books, FC was an absolute boon to our programming and I never saw such positive behavior change (well measured ICF program) in my 30 years working with autistics. Plus, they were really saying all those things folks were getting from FC. How true the content of their communication was or what it all meant, well, until we use FC more and study it then we won’t know…will we? It’s also harmless, and even if it wasn’t valid, it has great therapeutic spin offs. In autism that is the bottom line for workers. For those who don’t work with them directly like researchers, pros and skeptics, they can affford to be skeptical and diss the intervention. The folks closest to autistics can’t afford that luxury and that is why all parents and workers insist on using whatever “works”. However, even most of them have been affected by the controversy and skeptics and aren’t using FC. It is a HUGE tragedy.

Tom Smith

]]>