As a part of an effort to prepare a paper about what counts as evidence-based education, I’ve been poking around the Web for places that use that phrase to refer to their products. They are legion, but I spent a while drilling down into one that I want to use to illustrate a point. Thus, I’ve been learning a bit about Autism Pro.
AutismPro is a 9-step program that combines evidence-based methods from an international board of autism experts to empower parents, educators and clinicians to better understand, design and deliver effective autism intervention.
Inexpensive and inclusive, AutismPro is the ideal training tool for autism novices and a valuable team management resource for professionals with heavy workloads.
I harbor a good bit of skepticism about Autism Pro. I must note that my concerns about AP are predicated on a limited experience with it, however; I’ve only viewed the “firststeps” illustration. Still, there appear to be good features. For example, the product provided a set of activities that are naturalistic, include directions for Rf., and incorporate direct assessments. Importantly, the activities seem to be oriented toward a sensative consideration of the child.
One of my most substantial concerns is that Austism Pro seems to be equating the quality of evidence undergirding multiple different interventions for Autism and related disorders. For example, on the research page there is this statement:
There are many methods proven to help children with autism. Each method can be used alone or in combination with other methods. AutismProâ„¢ recommends only those methods that have been proven to benefit children with autism.
Below this statement there is a diagram of 12 (count ‘em) “common approaches” arrayed to show a range from behavioral through developmental to social; on a Flash version of this page, one can select each of the various approaches and see a synopsis of the approach as well as a reference or two. From reading most of these synopses, one (at least this “one”) is left with the impression that the evidence for (a) discrete trials, (b) pivotal-response training, (c) TEACCH, and (d) Floortime is essentially equivalent. I doubt that.
What is of greater concern is that there’s an undercurrent from the presentation of the models, some interview questions in the firststeps section, and even the names of files that makes me wonder whether Autism Pro advocates having users (parents, case managers, etc.) select intervention methods base on the users’ personal prefereneces for the approaches. In my book, that’s not making evidence-based decisions.
Learn more about Autism Pro by visiting the site and reading a press release. Over on Autism in NB, Harold L. Doherty shares some reservations about Autism Pro.
Sphere: Related Content
An off-topic post: go read the two posts from California Teacher Guy (who I think is a SpEd teacher) and the one post at my page.
Post #1 CTG
http://californiateacherguy.blogspot.com/2007/03/cruel-words-one-of-my-co-teachers.html
didn’t know what to say, so I listened to her rant for a moment or two, and then excused myself. As I walked to my office, I remembered that she has also called students with IEPs “dummy†and “short bus.â€
This demeaning of students with disabilities has to stop. God grant me wisdom to say what needs to be said to my co-teacher tomorrow.
Post #2
http://californiateacherguy.blogspot.com/2007/03/casting-pearls-before-swine-give-not.html
And the story I plan to tell is of Gordon Graves and his discovery that thinking of people as swine and treating them like swine will cause them to act like swine—or sh**, as the case may be.
Liz wrote
http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2007/03/why_sped_parent.html
Reid is a student in CTG’s class “who has an IEP for emotional disturbance.” One of Reid’s other teachers ranted to CTG about Reid, describing him as “a piece of sh1t”.
“Evidence based” is terribly cliche. If your product is so good, let researchers put it to the test. We’ve got a product developed, based upon research that is coming out soon and we’re willing to give samples away as we’re confident independent researchers will verify the efficacy of the product and recommended methods.
One thing parents and professionals can do is look at references. I went to a workshop for an unnamed autism treatment. 69 of the 144 references to “evidence” were the authors own findings. If you see this phenomenon, let skepticism reign.
Andrew, I agree that it’s important to examine what people mean by “evidence-based.” I’ve been pushing the idea for a while based on integrative literature reviews and standards advocated by professional organizations, but it’s seemed to take on new connotations in the last coupla-few years. That’s why I’m working on an article addressing this topic.
As for the authors promoting their own treatment based on 69 of 144 references to their own work: Yikes! Probably only the UCLA group has that many findings, no? Were these findings published in refereed journals?
Back to the main point: Consumers—parents, teachers, school administrators, therapists—should indeed approach advocates for treatments with substantial skepticism. Every time a student leaves one of my classes saying that, I think I’ve done some beneficial.