Recently I got a note from a colleague whom I trust for his (it’s a guy) adherence to evidence-based therapy and methods of teaching. He wondered whether it was sensible to devote valuable research funds and time to evaluating interventions that sensible beings would dismiss out of hand. For example, why waste cycles (not his term, but it fits my geekiness) on examining whether hyperbaric oxygen therapy, learning styles, vitamin regimens, facilitated communication, neurological organization therapy, and etc.?
My correspondent’s point is a good one. Instead of debunking bogus therapies, it probably would be more helpful—at least, to those of us who understand the logical-deductive path of science—to devote our efforts to (a) promoting procedures that have been documented to produce benefits for children and youth who have learning and behavior problems or are at risk for developing them and (b) refining promising practices for those individuals.
Continue reading ‘Why examine bogus methods?’
Recent Comments