CSU Stanislaus Professors Publish Revealing Report On Autism Treatment
Newsline : CSU Stanislaus News
I should start by saying that I'm not a big fan of ABA. I'm sure that in some instances it is the best course, by my feeling is that is somewhat radical and I'm not convinced that the long-term effect isn't actually damaging.
The most disturbing part of this report to me is that the two doctors who wrote this report are both co-founders of Therapeutic Pathways and The Kendall School, both of which push ABA as their primary treatment. Having seen personally the effect of "eclectic" treatments on my own child, I think that it is somewhat irresponsible to dismiss it as "ineffective".
Intensive ABA of 25-40 hours per week 1:1 versus intensive "eclectic" therapy 30 hours per week in a classroom (1:2 or 1:3) is more effective. Wow! Thanks for the insight. Perhaps this study should have been the difference made between 1:1 treatment and 1:2 or 1:3... It seems a bit self-evident to me. I have an idea, let's compare apples to lemons and decide which is sweeter. What do you suppose the outcome will be?
"The popular notion that virtually any intervention can produce meaningful benefits for children with autism if it is provided intensively has not been confirmed by two controlled studies that addressed that hypothesis." Did I miss something here? Is it really the popular notion that any intervention can produce benefits? I have not met many parents of autistic children saying "Anything is better than nothing..."
And I'm not here trying to say that ABA is wrong. There are facets of the treatment that aren't being looked at. I cannot resist the comparison between this treatment and training a pet, while some of you may think that is unjust, consider this: I want to teach my dog to sit, when I tell him to sit and he does he gets a treat. When I tell him to sit and he does not, he doesn't get a treat. Either way you look at it, this is positive reinforcement at its basic level. Now, three days later I am still training my dog. He understands the basic principle of reward, pretty soon he will sit as soon as he sees the treat. Does this sound familiar? I'm not trying to compare autistic children to pets or dogs, I am trying to make a simple analogy. Do you think it is appropriate to have children running on nothing but learned responses?
Chances are, the biggest problem you autistic child faces is the lack of critical thinking. This is displayed with the inability to answer "wh" questions. The problem that I have with ABA is that it is designed to circumvent the problem, not attempt to correct it. To me it is human nature to have some learned skills and some innate, I for one do not believe that all innate skills can be learned. It seems that the therapy is unquestionably successful, but by what measure of success? Standardized test scores? A less disruptive child? What are the long term impacts of teaching these children to repress their instincts?
"Green noted that some of these techniques, such as sensory integration therapy, have not been shown through sound research to produce measurable improvements in useful skills or reductions in problem behavior." And here is where the rubber meets the road folks. Problem behavior. Will someone please define that phrase for me? It's really different for everyone isn't it? My experience with "problem behavior" is that most times it is a direct reflection of sensory issues; too much or too little. In my opinion, there are certain sensory deficits that the mind is actually craving or overwhelmed with. In the short term, you might have a much more behaved, socially acceptable child, but in the long term what will happen to these children when all the repressed feelings finally catch up to them?
"Co-researcher Green noted that scientific studies of Âeclectic treatment are necessary because funding treatments that have not been scientifically validated waste scarce resources and costs these children the opportunity to realize their full potential." Speaking of wasting scarce resources... Which is sweeter? The apple or the lemon? Counter to what Dr. Green is saying, there are many treatments out there. Some will work for your child and some will not, ABA is not the only effective one. Once again, you know your child better than anyone else. When it comes to treatments, do the research, listen to opinions and make the decision that you think is best. More often than not you will be right.
I should start by saying that I'm not a big fan of ABA. I'm sure that in some instances it is the best course, by my feeling is that is somewhat radical and I'm not convinced that the long-term effect isn't actually damaging.
The most disturbing part of this report to me is that the two doctors who wrote this report are both co-founders of Therapeutic Pathways and The Kendall School, both of which push ABA as their primary treatment. Having seen personally the effect of "eclectic" treatments on my own child, I think that it is somewhat irresponsible to dismiss it as "ineffective".
Intensive ABA of 25-40 hours per week 1:1 versus intensive "eclectic" therapy 30 hours per week in a classroom (1:2 or 1:3) is more effective. Wow! Thanks for the insight. Perhaps this study should have been the difference made between 1:1 treatment and 1:2 or 1:3... It seems a bit self-evident to me. I have an idea, let's compare apples to lemons and decide which is sweeter. What do you suppose the outcome will be?
"The popular notion that virtually any intervention can produce meaningful benefits for children with autism if it is provided intensively has not been confirmed by two controlled studies that addressed that hypothesis." Did I miss something here? Is it really the popular notion that any intervention can produce benefits? I have not met many parents of autistic children saying "Anything is better than nothing..."
And I'm not here trying to say that ABA is wrong. There are facets of the treatment that aren't being looked at. I cannot resist the comparison between this treatment and training a pet, while some of you may think that is unjust, consider this: I want to teach my dog to sit, when I tell him to sit and he does he gets a treat. When I tell him to sit and he does not, he doesn't get a treat. Either way you look at it, this is positive reinforcement at its basic level. Now, three days later I am still training my dog. He understands the basic principle of reward, pretty soon he will sit as soon as he sees the treat. Does this sound familiar? I'm not trying to compare autistic children to pets or dogs, I am trying to make a simple analogy. Do you think it is appropriate to have children running on nothing but learned responses?
Chances are, the biggest problem you autistic child faces is the lack of critical thinking. This is displayed with the inability to answer "wh" questions. The problem that I have with ABA is that it is designed to circumvent the problem, not attempt to correct it. To me it is human nature to have some learned skills and some innate, I for one do not believe that all innate skills can be learned. It seems that the therapy is unquestionably successful, but by what measure of success? Standardized test scores? A less disruptive child? What are the long term impacts of teaching these children to repress their instincts?
"Green noted that some of these techniques, such as sensory integration therapy, have not been shown through sound research to produce measurable improvements in useful skills or reductions in problem behavior." And here is where the rubber meets the road folks. Problem behavior. Will someone please define that phrase for me? It's really different for everyone isn't it? My experience with "problem behavior" is that most times it is a direct reflection of sensory issues; too much or too little. In my opinion, there are certain sensory deficits that the mind is actually craving or overwhelmed with. In the short term, you might have a much more behaved, socially acceptable child, but in the long term what will happen to these children when all the repressed feelings finally catch up to them?
"Co-researcher Green noted that scientific studies of Âeclectic treatment are necessary because funding treatments that have not been scientifically validated waste scarce resources and costs these children the opportunity to realize their full potential." Speaking of wasting scarce resources... Which is sweeter? The apple or the lemon? Counter to what Dr. Green is saying, there are many treatments out there. Some will work for your child and some will not, ABA is not the only effective one. Once again, you know your child better than anyone else. When it comes to treatments, do the research, listen to opinions and make the decision that you think is best. More often than not you will be right.
posted by Dwight @ 11:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home