Jump to content

Menu

Recommendations Please (2e content)


Recommended Posts

So, we're finally reaching the end of Crazypant's evaluation.

 

Results - he qualifies for Mensa and is ASD-something. The Psych isn't quite sure where to put him in ASD because of his intelligence masking symptoms. But it will be in the final report somehow. Fine.

 

We have an appointment with his school to talk about possibilities. Different things are on the table.

 

The good thing about getting ASD on the report is that it will provide us money to purchase therapies for him. How this works is actually a bit complicated, but in the end it's quite open-ended. So we can use the budget to hire ABA, or go to parent-training seminars, or whatever.

 

Now we're quite rural, he's 2e, probably easiest to define as Aspie, and he's a foreign language speaker. He doesn't need much help with talking, not stimming, or behavior issues. And it seems like most of the professional resources I'm finding nearby are for those things or other more intense "classic" autism. I mean, I suppose I could call them up and drop the word "twice-exceptional" and see how they respond, but I'm not hopeful, kwim?

 

Within the budget construction, it is possible to parents to "hire" themselves to provide services. So this got me thinking that if the budget allows, I could order therapy materials and go through them with him myself. So it would be in English and tailored to his mental and emotional intelligence. Obviously, we'd also be considering local programs and seeing what the school can provide, but for targeting his issues I'm looking for recommendations for curriculum.

 

Something open-and-go for me (so I don't do it wrong), something visual for him, something that isn't too "babyish," something where he can use his intelligence to grasp the big picture. I think the biggest issues to work on with him is social skills, ToM, and fine motor skills.

 

I'm looking at Model Me Kids. Has anyone used that?

 

I know some people here use SocialThinking.org. Any specific recommendations from their products?

 

Know the Code - another video curriculum. Or Explore Social Skills - any ideas about these?

 

Motor skills - I don't know. He knows how to tie shoes and ride a bike. Using scissors or a pencil is still hard. Do you just have them practice it (a bit every day) even though it makes them super upset? Is there a curriculum for this? That sounds a bit dumb, I know, but it might help if I can do the "blame the curriculum" game (the book says this is day 5, and on day 5 you have to do this activity, so just get it done). Or is it better to just totally outsource these sorts of hard and upsetting things?

 

Because his thinking level is high, I'm looking at middle-school/high-school materials. But for social skills some of the programs I see include topics in sex. He's 10. With a curriculum I do with him, I could just skip those parts. But for a book I hand to him to read....no, he'd just find it very confusing, and disturbing. Anyone have BTDT advice for me?

 

Any other if-I-could-purchase-anything-I-would-buy-this-for-my-2e-kid recommendations?

 

BtW - his lowest scores on the WISC were processing speed and working memory, but they were still slightly above average. So there's technically nothing that needs remediation as far as the WISC is concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't go above the target age range on social skills materials. I think they're intentionally meant to be fairly simple to make sure the point isn't missed. A kid can be very sophisticated in the academic sense and still not get it about social stuff so I would not target social skills material to academic level.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The base concepts don't actually change as you change the target age on Social Thinking materials. It's the same concepts, over and over, just in more mature situations. So really, you're going to find it more helpful to use age-appropriate materials.

 

As far as the ASD level, yes it's worthless for actually explaining their function. The article to explain what you're seeing is https://www.socialthinking.com/Articles?name=Social%20Thinking%20Social%20Communication%20Profile  You're wanting to assess his social communication profile. It will be MUCH more helpful to you than DSM ASD level, and figuring that out will explain why he seems so contradictory.

 

I just got back from 3 days of Social Thinking workshops where they demonstrated how to do the assessment, etc. https://www.socialthinking.com/Conferences That's the link to the schedule. It will be ROCKET FUEL for you if you can go.

 

No, I would not advise you to be the sole person doing his intervention. One, you would need to be honest about your own social communication profile and know your weaknesses. Two, he's going to benefit from variety. I've gone to three social thinking workshops now (Zones of Reg, a really basic one on the ILAUGH model, and now more advanced stuff) and *I* don't choose to do it all myself. I am reinforcing and carrying over and finding the people. I'm the glue and the magic, because I'm here all the time! IF you can find someone who has made serious attempt to understand Social Thinking, you will get MUCH farther working with someone than working by yourself. Learn all you can AND find that person, even if you only see them once a week or once every other week. You'll get much farther that way than alone.

 

Yes, you are correct in sensing there's a spread in methodologies, depending on IQ. They specifically say that ST materials are targeted to kids of near average to above average IQs. In other words, when you go to SocialThinking.com and buy stuff, you're buying stuff that is based on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, that is attempting to approach issues on a meta-cognitive level, that is attempting to engage their IQ, their ability to understand. It's considered differentiated instruction. For someone with less language, they would move away from language-based therapy. There are other interventions for other situations. Others can speak to that.

 

I'm just saying if your gut is saying there OUGHT to be a way to harness how gifted he is, you're correct there is. It's the Social Thinking stuff. 

 

https://www.socialthinking.com/Clinical%20Training This is the link to find people who have gotten *clinical training* in doing the social competency assessments. These people went to the main clinics at Boston, in CA, and were there for days getting trained. Some do work in schools. Intervention in the schools will vary. The school does NOT have to give you an IEP or even a 504 simply because he has autism. They might say his ability to access his education is not affected. They might say he does not need IEP goals in various areas. A diagnosis medically does NOT mean he will get an IEP. He might or might not. And the truth is schools typically have tight budgets and sometimes very little training. 

 

So you can read the article, look at the referral list, see who you can find. If you can find someone to do a that assessment, it will yield a report with IEP goals and answers to your questions about the contradictions you see (so bright, seemingly good on some things and not at others). It can actually help you see long-term outcomes, sigh. That's the thing they stressed all three days, that they BEG people to be realistic and not ignore where their kids really are. For everything you do with him, his peers will continue to progress as well, meaning he never actually just gets "fixed" or has it go away. He is who he is. So finding where he is on the profiles, seeing where this is going could answer a lot of questions. I'm getting it done for my ds, hopefully before his next IEP meeting, because I need that info to advocate better. I'm going to have to drive 2-3 hours for that eval, but that's life. It's just one time.

 

As far as services, if you can find a BCBA or behaviorist who really, really gets 2E kids, it could be exceptionally helpful to you. No ONE PERSON is the guru and going to do everything. But I find I'm better as a team. I'm better getting their perspective and blending it with what I know and learn. Helps with burnout, helps with having better expectations. They saw in my dc abilities I didn't see. I would not give up on looking for that. Even if the person is 1-3 hours away and you only see them twice a year and then skype, you will be VERY, VERY GLAD you have that person. Or maybe not, lol. I'm just saying for us it's really good. You're trying to go 0-60 really fast. You're trying to learn, and it's really hard to teach what you don't already know. It will go better with some help.

 

He's staying in school? So you're going to do the IEP fight? Personally, I wouldn't do that until you have a private, 3rd party doing that assessment that yields IEP goals. Did your private psych run pragmatics? There are kids who pass pragmatics tests who are struggling in real life and need goals. The IEP process is rough because you don't know how the school does stuff, what they'll want. If he's going to need an IEP, I would begin by learning that process and getting your ducks lined up to advocate for him. If you begin intervention NOW, before you get the IEP, you're sorta cart before horse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Side note. People have lots of opinions about ABA, what it means to choose to use a behaviorist, etc. Remember there is the specific methodology (ABA) and then the umbrella term. I'm using it as umbrella term. Our behaviorist is NOT, NOT, NOT an ABA purist. A straight behavioral approach wouldn't even be appropriate for someone with a gifted IQ. You WANT to harness his cognitive, his own awareness (meta-cognitive), his own ability to understand how he feels, what his goals are, etc. 

 

So our behaviorist is not a purist. I call it ABA as an umbrella term, and we do lots of Social Thinking and bring in some traditional ABA behavioral modification supports. My ds needs BOTH. My behaviorist is very experienced with 2E kids, gets them, and is committed to working in a way that nurtures his own ability to self-regulate and be self-aware. Very important.

 

People like Prizant, and they link to an article of his on the ST website. I haven't read it yet, but it's in my to do pile. :)  https://www.socialthinking.com/Articles?name=Treatment%20Options%20and%20Parent%20Choice%20Is%20ABA%20the%20Only%20Way

Edited by OhElizabeth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're currently in Western Europe, correct? From my understanding, Europeans tend to be much more hesitant about labeling than here in America and so it's mainly the more severely impaired ones who wind up getting diagnosed. So unfortunately I suspect it will be pretty difficult finding someone local to you who has a lot of experience working with higher-functioning 2E kids "on the spectrum".

 

Teletherapy might be a good option. My DD has been doing teletherapy to supplement her in-person auditory-verbal therapy since her cochlear implant surgery last year since her in-person AVT has a full schedule. I haven't ever looked for a teletherapist to work on social skills & ToM stuff but I am guessing that there probably are folks out there who can do it. 

 

Fine motor skills would be worked on by an Occupational Therapist, assuming they have OT's where you are. That is not something I would attempt at home.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I missed about the op being in Europe! The Social Thinking website lists products by ages. You want to start with something that is sort of general, with really foundational concepts. At 10 you're looking at something like Social Detective. Then you'd go into Superflex. He's right on the line for going up to junior high materials. They are selling a book RUDE! that I really liked. It's just a really readable version that hits a lot.

 

Also look at Sticker Strategies and the ThinkSheets books. I just got the blue, two book series for younger kids. I think it is aimed at 4th and up, so that's perfect for him. DON'T aim high. Go simpler and let it really gel in his mind. Really slow down and take a simple concept and see all the ways it applies to life.

 

This is the blue set 

https://www.socialthinking.com/Products/Social%20Thinking%20and%20Me

 

But I would start with 

https://www.socialthinking.com/Products/You%20are%20a%20Social%20Detective to build a foundation.

 

then get Superflex https://www.socialthinking.com/Products/Superflex%20A%20Superhero%20Social%20Thinking%20Curriculum%20Package

 

and 

https://www.socialthinking.com/Products/Thinksheets%20for%20Teaching%20Social%20Thinking%20and%20Related%20Skills

 

A simple concept that he takes the time to really, really, really understand and apply will change his life. Take "group plan." It's one of the most basic things they teach, but it has huge implications all day long! Another is "people have feelings" which has huge implications all day long.

 

This book would help you https://www.socialthinking.com/Products/Why%20Teach%20Social%20Thinking

 

If it's age-appropriate he can do this. But it's about application to life, not so much the meta-cognitive process behind it. Don't skip the social thinking work. https://www.socialthinking.com/Products/How%20Rude%20The%20Teenagers%20Guide%20to%20Good%20Manners%20%20Proper%20Behavior%20and%20Not%20Grossing%20People%20Out

 

You would enjoy doing these together https://www.socialthinking.com/Products/Should%20I%20or%20Shouldnt%20I%20What%20Would%20Others%20Think%20Elementary%20Edition Our behaviorist does the with our ds, just a few each week.

 

ST has tons and tons of articles and are now creating video and online learning materials. This would be particularly helpful to you as a beginner. It looks like it's 1 hour. https://www.socialthinking.com/LandingPages/Webinar-Core-Materials

 

Here's MGW, 1 hour, and you can watch it for free. She's talking about how to work with 8-11 yos. Remember her market IS gifted kids, kids who have AT LEAST near average, often very gifted IQs. So you don't have to bump up and don't want to. I paid $$$ to learn this and she has put it online for free. :)  https://www.socialthinking.com/LandingPages/Webinar

 

ST is selling R Yuu-The Game. It's a social skills game where the kids raise dragons. It's best implemented by someone who understands the social thinking concepts, meaning you really have to bone up. It doesn't include lesson plans. If he's into dragons, once you get some work under your belt you could do it together. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking through all the links....

 

Yes, we're still in NL. I found out there two organizations here that run intensive parent-training seminars, but neither are ST. In any case, they'd be months away.

 

There's school choice here, so one of things under discussion is whether to move him to a different school entirely. Socially, he's quite disconnected from the other kids in his school (except for two sisters, who themselves have a bit of alphabet soup after their names). We have tried to teach him how to "fake interest" with the other kids all year, but trading football cards is just a bridge too far to practice what we're telling him, I think. 

 

The maturity/age-level thing - when I was poking around the internet I found some "social stories" and even at the upper-elementary they seemed to be at the level of "when I poke my friend with my pencil, this makes her feel sad." I think something like this would make him go  :001_rolleyes:  :rofl: . What he needs to understand is why in social studies class the teacher doesn't want to talk about social differences between hunter-gatherer and agricultural societies (his teachers are great, but they're swamped with 23 other kids, obviously). Dh and I have tried to explain to him why this happens, but I don't think he really understands it. Learning whether communication is proper to the context is a general skill, but I think he'd do better learning from more complex examples. Or maybe the social stories I found were just bad?

 

As for OT - yes, maybe that could get scheduled. Maybe. I feel like in the midst of sorting out his other, more pressing, issues, the motor issues got sifted to the bottom of the pile. So I don't know what services we can get there or what the waiting list would be. If there's a good activity I can start doing with him now, at least that would be some movement on that issue. 

 

Have to run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The maturity/age-level thing - when I was poking around the internet I found some "social stories" and even at the upper-elementary they seemed to be at the level of "when I poke my friend with my pencil, this makes her feel sad." I think something like this would make him go  :001_rolleyes:  :rofl: . What he needs to understand is why in social studies class the teacher doesn't want to talk about social differences between hunter-gatherer and agricultural societies (his teachers are great, but they're swamped with 23 other kids, obviously). Dh and I have tried to explain to him why this happens, but I don't think he really understands it. Learning whether communication is proper to the context is a general skill, but I think he'd do better learning from more complex examples. Or maybe the social stories I found were just bad?

 

Be glad that your child is beyond needing a social story to understand why it's mean and not funny to poke somebody with a pencil. :tongue_smilie: My DD may be 8.5 but with her disabilities she's functioning like the equivalent of a typical kindergartner. And kindergartners will often try to get away with bratty stuff like poking someone with a pencil. 

 

A quick Google search turned up this site that might be more along the lines of what your child needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The things you're listing are the fruits of clear social thinking. He still needs the concepts. If he had them, he could probably think and problem solve for himself by applying them. So the trick is to get the foundational concepts in materials that are age-appropriate. The We Thinkers materials are too young. Social Detective would not be. Nobody is staying in that book for a year, kwim? It's like a month, a while, time for you to apply it, for him to think about it. Then the blue books.

 

So he might have really complex situations to apply the concepts to, but that doesn't mean he has really complex, teeny tiny, hard to pinpoint holes. He probably has really basic holes like people have feelings about my behaviors, there's a group plan, etc. 

 

The RUDE book will apply things at his level. Definitely get that for application, but dig in on some serious social thinking, something that gets him working with the CONCEPTS, not just the application.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course you wouldn't want to work on things that don't apply to your child. But the inappropriateness of dominating class discussion is independent of the content or how smart one is for coming up with it, I think. Maybe I'm misreading the way you're describing it but in case you were giving a literal description, you might also want to work on why things that aren't quite at his own level aren't laugh out loud hilarious, for "babies" etc., because this is something high IQ people deal with throughout our lives and actually the older the peer group gets, the more ungracious and socially off it is to betray that type of response. In general you may want to be careful not to increase his own level of focus on the intelligence difference. I know from painful firsthand experience that sometimes parents of kids who are different tend to seize on high intelligence something like a redeeming quality; being raised with a "gifted" identity was pretty miserable for me and did nothing for my social skills. Here's hoping I'm grossly overinterpreting you on this, and apologies if I am.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course you wouldn't want to work on things that don't apply to your child. But the inappropriateness of dominating class discussion is independent of the content or how smart one is for coming up with it, I think. Maybe I'm misreading the way you're describing it but in case you were giving a literal description, you might also want to work on why things that aren't quite at his own level aren't laugh out loud hilarious, for "babies" etc., because this is something high IQ people deal with throughout our lives and actually the older the peer group gets, the more ungracious and socially off it is to betray that type of response. In general you may want to be careful not to increase his own level of focus on the intelligence difference. I know from painful firsthand experience that sometimes parents of kids who are different tend to seize on high intelligence something like a redeeming quality; being raised with a "gifted" identity was pretty miserable for me and did nothing for my social skills. Here's hoping I'm grossly overinterpreting you on this, and apologies if I am.

 

It's like he's just figured out that other kids aren't like him, and he doesn't know what to do with it.

 

It's the age, I guess, 10yo's are beyond the "weee, what a fun slide! Let's go again" peer interaction. And being in school, instead of meeting kids only in well-defined activities like CoderDojo. 

 

He has almost no shared interests with the other kids in school. So we can tell him "smile, say hi, ask about their weekend" but he doesn't see the point. He should learn to be polite and make small talk, but he doesn't see any possibility of it paying off, that maybe by doing this he might find a friend he connects with. So it makes him even more "meh" about trying.

 

So he's intentionally disconnecting from the other kids, and then complains that he's lonely. And when he tries to ask a question in class, the teachers know that 10 times out of 10 it will probably be so abstractly advanced that it will be useless to the other students, so they tell him that he can't ask a question, and then he complains that he's being ignored. He's frustrated, and his perspective is not in a good place at all right now. So he feels that when people put something to do in front of him which he finds really easy, or looks like it's for younger kids, it's because they think he's stupid. It's a bad place for him to be in, I know, but it makes me extra careful to not make it worse.

 

A lot of gifted kids probably have to grapple with the "kids my age really take 3 whole months to learn fractions!?" idea at some point. But when you add in ToM deficiencies as well....yeah. Once he feels at least one of his E's get understood, I'll tackle ironing the crinkles here. But right now, he's in a place of enormous confusion and frustration.

 

But he doesn't often make inappropriate/rude outbursts in public or to other kids. He mostly just complains to me. And that's okay. But it also means that I get the full force of his "How did you even think this was a good idea? Do you not know me at all? I'm your own kid!" exasperation if I ask him to do something he finds wildly cognitively inappropriate. Even if it is a skill he needs to step back to work on, if he thinks it's beneath him, he'll mentally shut down on it completely.

 

 

It's also something that worries me about OT. I started OT for my hands (turns out that I have loose joints in my fingers) and I'm giggling over the fact that I've be prescribed to play with play-doh daily. I know it's medically effective and all, but still, it's a little funny. But if Crazypants was told to play with play-doh, I think he'd be really upset, that it would be a sign that he's really dumb, and can't do anything, and catastrophic, catastrophic, catastrophic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be glad that your child is beyond needing a social story to understand why it's mean and not funny to poke somebody with a pencil. :tongue_smilie: My DD may be 8.5 but with her disabilities she's functioning like the equivalent of a typical kindergartner. And kindergartners will often try to get away with bratty stuff like poking someone with a pencil. 

 

A quick Google search turned up this site that might be more along the lines of what your child needs.

 

Oh, yeah, I'm sure the social story was made for a reason. But it seemed like most of the Age 6-12 selections were like that, and the Age 13-18 were...beyond his hormone level. He's at a really odd place when it comes to finding a good fit, for a lot of things.

 

That link has some really good stuff, thanks!

 

Though one of the videos is narrated by a clown. A clown? That's not going to fly here...  :huh:  :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The things you're listing are the fruits of clear social thinking. He still needs the concepts. If he had them, he could probably think and problem solve for himself by applying them. So the trick is to get the foundational concepts in materials that are age-appropriate. The We Thinkers materials are too young. Social Detective would not be. Nobody is staying in that book for a year, kwim? It's like a month, a while, time for you to apply it, for him to think about it. Then the blue books.

 

So he might have really complex situations to apply the concepts to, but that doesn't mean he has really complex, teeny tiny, hard to pinpoint holes. He probably has really basic holes like people have feelings about my behaviors, there's a group plan, etc. 

 

The RUDE book will apply things at his level. Definitely get that for application, but dig in on some serious social thinking, something that gets him working with the CONCEPTS, not just the application.

 

 

Just want to say thanks you for your posts. I'm figuring out the ST website and how their stuff goes together.

 

His basic holes, yes. Sometimes he'll say something, and I'm just like "huh? what? you don't know that?"

 

I think it's weird for him (especially weird?) because I suspect he has an inkling that he's missing something, but it's just out his grasp. Which makes it all the more frustrating for him.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like he's just figured out that other kids aren't like him, and he doesn't know what to do with it.

 

It's the age, I guess, 10yo's are beyond the "weee, what a fun slide! Let's go again" peer interaction. And being in school, instead of meeting kids only in well-defined activities like CoderDojo.

 

He has almost no shared interests with the other kids in school. So we can tell him "smile, say hi, ask about their weekend" but he doesn't see the point. He should learn to be polite and make small talk, but he doesn't see any possibility of it paying off, that maybe by doing this he might find a friend he connects with. So it makes him even more "meh" about trying.

 

So he's intentionally disconnecting from the other kids, and then complains that he's lonely. And when he tries to ask a question in class, the teachers know that 10 times out of 10 it will probably be so abstractly advanced that it will be useless to the other students, so they tell him that he can't ask a question, and then he complains that he's being ignored. He's frustrated, and his perspective is not in a good place at all right now. So he feels that when people put something to do in front of him which he finds really easy, or looks like it's for younger kids, it's because they think he's stupid. It's a bad place for him to be in, I know, but it makes me extra careful to not make it worse.

 

A lot of gifted kids probably have to grapple with the "kids my age really take 3 whole months to learn fractions!?" idea at some point. But when you add in ToM deficiencies as well....yeah. Once he feels at least one of his E's get understood, I'll tackle ironing the crinkles here. But right now, he's in a place of enormous confusion and frustration.

 

But he doesn't often make inappropriate/rude outbursts in public or to other kids. He mostly just complains to me. And that's okay. But it also means that I get the full force of his "How did you even think this was a good idea? Do you not know me at all? I'm your own kid!" exasperation if I ask him to do something he finds wildly cognitively inappropriate. Even if it is a skill he needs to step back to work on, if he thinks it's beneath him, he'll mentally shut down on it completely.

 

 

It's also something that worries me about OT. I started OT for my hands (turns out that I have loose joints in my fingers) and I'm giggling over the fact that I've be prescribed to play with play-doh daily. I know it's medically effective and all, but still, it's a little funny. But if Crazypants was told to play with play-doh, I think he'd be really upset, that it would be a sign that he's really dumb, and can't do anything, and catastrophic, catastrophic, catastrophic.

I was this kid and my heart aches reading your description of him. I wish I had some brilliant suggestions, but I don't. All I can do is confirm your take on the situation. Ten is a hard age. The necessary social skills go up a level, you can't just wait your turn to play teather ball anymore. At the same time your academic needs really diverge from your peers. I mean I was always accelerated, but in lower elementary I still needed to learn some practical skills like how to read and write.... But by ten? I probably could have skipped to high school, content-wise.

 

We didn't know I was autistic when I was a kid. 2E wasn't a thing then. But I knew I different. I'm glad I also knew I was gifted. That gave me at least a partial explanation for why I couldn't fit in. I say embrace the gifted identity. Not as a merit badge, but as a valid difference.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you watch videos of them working with kids, they really, really amp the level of analysis when they work with super high IQ kids. Sort of like if you read the concept to a 5 yo and asked a question or you read it to an adult. Same topic, but just much more sophisticated with language, connections, ANALYSIS...

 

That's what they mean by meta-cognitive. It means thinking about thinking. Right now he has no seed skills, nothing to help him analyze his own thinking. So he's just having these really extreme, b&w reactions. He can't even use his super powers (that super high IQ, etc.) to figure things out! 

 

ST has tons and tons of free articles. The more you read and learn there, the better.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It's also something that worries me about OT. I started OT for my hands (turns out that I have loose joints in my fingers) and I'm giggling over the fact that I've be prescribed to play with play-doh daily. I know it's medically effective and all, but still, it's a little funny. But if Crazypants was told to play with play-doh, I think he'd be really upset, that it would be a sign that he's really dumb, and can't do anything, and catastrophic, catastrophic, catastrophic.

 

A good OT will look for materials that are age-appropriate like TheraPutty if this type of concern is brought to his/her attention beforehand. He's not being asked to play with Play-Dough like a toddler, he's doing hand-strengthening exercises with therapeutic material. ;)

 

As adults, we know it's a "tomayto, tomahto" difference but 'tweens and teens are often sensitive to any perception that what they're doing is "babyish". We talk a lot about this issue in my Communicative Disorders classes and I would presume that OT coursework also addresses it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will refrain from sharing personal opinions on the Social Thinking Company and just share something I found. A big part of it actually agrees with my own observations:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4893033/

Interestingly, it's from professionals in the field of Applied Behavior Analysis!

As for Barry Prizant, he has written the foreword to Carol Gray's (Social Stories) latest edition of her book:
https://www.amazon.com/Social-Story-Revised-Expanded-Anniversary/dp/1941765165/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1494060823&sr=1-1&keywords=New+social+story+book

...and there's mention of social stories in the SCERTS model, for which I own the manuals. No mention of the Social Thinking Company that I can recall. Here's a quote from their site. Again no mention of the Social Thinking Company:

"How does SCERTS compare to other approaches?

The SCERTS curriculum provides a systematic method that ensures that specific skills and appropriate supports, stated as educational objectives, are selected and applied in a consistent manner across a child’s day. This process allows families and educational teams to draw from a wide range of effective practices that are available, and to build upon their current knowledge and abilities in providing an effective program. One of the most unique qualities of SCERTS is that it can incorporate practices from other approaches including contemporary ABA (e.g., Pivotal Response Treatment, LEAP), TEACCH, Floortime, RDI, Hanen, and Social Stories®. The SCERTS Model differs most notably from the focus of "traditional" ABA, an approach that typically targets children's responses in adult directed Discrete Trials, by promoting child-initiated communication in everyday activities, and in drawing extensively from research on child and human development. The SCERTS Model is most concerned with helping persons with autism to achieve “Authentic Progressâ€, which is defined as the ability to learn and spontaneously apply functional and relevant skills in a variety of settings and with a variety of partners."

Found here:
http://www.scerts.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=

On social stories, these can be created with the specific child in mind. The book is useful (I own that as well) but there are free general guidelines floating around on the web, for anyone interested.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will refrain from sharing personal opinions on the Social Thinking Company and just share something I found. A big part of it actually agrees with my own observations:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4893033/

 

Interestingly, it's from professionals in the field of Applied Behavior Analysis!

 

There are SOOOOOOO many problems with this linked paper. The authors are using a study about one specific PS's approach that as far as I can tell did not use any ST materials to bash ST.

 

"the empirical evidence that an eclectic approach is not an effective intervention for individuals diagnosed with ASD."

 

No, actually all we can say is that one particular PS trying to piecemeal together their own program didn't work for 16 preschoolers with ASD. That may be true, but it's irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadian, I think there may be a bunch of pieces to the puzzle you're really missing in your assessment, leading you to a b&w reduction. Prizant has multiple articles on the ST site and the ST team recommends ALL those materials and methodologies, mentioning them by name, specifically, as being great options for particular communication profiles.

 

https://www.socialthinking.com/Search%20Results#q=prizant  Prizant articles

 

https://www.socialthinking.com/Articles?name=Social%20Thinking%20Social%20Communication%20Profile methods recommended for each communication profile

 

As for the accusation of pseudoscience, that is obviously a bunch of turf war. Think about the absurdity here. ST is marketing to kids of average to above average IQ, many of whom never qualify for an IEP, never got diagnosed till later in life, and NEVER GOT ABA. The discussion is totally absurd. The kids getting IEPs and aggressive intervention early on are kids with ASD2 or 3, and those kids are borderline or not even good candidates for ST materials. Totally different markets, totally different audiences. ASD 2 corresponds to CSC on the social communication profiles, and if the IQ is low and the language low, those kids aren't referred for ST. They emphasized this over and over and over in the ST conference. 

 

It's also really shocking to say that kids with a gifted IQ should be treated exactly as kids with ID, merely because they have the same (abitrary, non-genetics, non-biologically based) DSM diagnosis. So, for instance, an autism school we visited wanted to put my ds, highly verbal and with a gifted IQ, into a low ratio room with low IQ, non-verbal dc. Obviously this was DUMB. It would frustrate him to no end. The methodologies CANNOT be the same. That's the whole point.

 

It's also absurd to say ST eschews all behavioralism, as behaviorists go to this and MGW uses the term of herself. Now maybe she redefines it and maybe her def doesn't suit someone else, fine. But I will note the irony, that MGW is saying pretty much what you've always thought, that intervention should match the dc.

 

And THAT is why MGW positively refuses, completely refuses, to standardize her assessment tools. THAT is why that article on how her stuff is therefore pseudoscience, not research-based, blah blah, is coming about. The mentioned this over and over. There ARE REASONS why thinking people would choose NOT to take a complex, dynamic process that involves lots of processing in the brain in a space of two seconds (typical social processing response) and reduce it to a single, standardized question on a test. Think how many of these kids PASS pragmatics tests but are struggling at LIFE.

 

So they have the data to know which profiles of kids pass which tests but still struggle. It's all there in that article. 

 

And the REASON it matters is because of what they do with the results. It's sounds really pious to say insurance companies, schools, etc. want standardized tools in order to give optimal service, but it's baloney. They want tools to DENY SERVICE. It's all about denying service, denying IEPs, deciding who gets service and who doesn't. So right now, many kids with ASD have NO services in the ps, none. Not ABA, not ST, nothing. The system uses the fact that they can pass a slow, single question at a time, non-realistic, formulaic, standardized test to decide whole swaths of kids don't need services. MGW is trying to increase access to services, cutting across DSM diagnostic boundaries. It's actually BRILLIANT and amazing. I sat at the conference with a SN coor for a ps in our state. What a brilliant thing to bring in psychs, SN coordinators, people who are then realizing hey, we can acknowledge deficits and HELP people.

 

A meta-cognitive approach for people of average to gifted IQ just makes sense. It's the compassion with which we ourselves want to be treated. I'm not sure why this is so confusing. It's about treatment appropriate to the person, not one size fits all. There are CONSEQUENCES to methodologies of intervention. EVERY professional I've taken my ds to has BEGGED ME NOT to do straight ABA. This IS the gold standard of intervention for someone in my ds' position. 

 

There's an audience for the materials, reasons for what they do. The research is on their site, so people can just read. If you don't like it, don't do it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are SOOOOOOO many problems with this linked paper. The authors are using a study about one specific PS's approach that as far as I can tell did not use any ST materials to bash ST.

 

 

No, actually all we can say is that one particular PS trying to piecemeal together their own program didn't work for 16 preschoolers with ASD. That may be true, but it's irrelevant.

Could you point me to what led you to believe that their statements were based on the study you linked?

 

The authors have addressed very specific points for which the Social Thinking Company has done a poor job of addressing as far as I can see. I had many of these questions, thoughts, concerns, before I came across this article. After researching their site about a year ago I came to some of the same conclusions, and I'm not even pro-ABA as you know. I still acknowledge Skinner's and Lovaas' contributions to behavior therapy, even though I find Skinner's premise flawed.

 

If you look up the names of some of the contributors to this paper, you will see that they are big names in behavior therapy/ ABA. R. Leaf is a psychologist that worked with Lovaas.

 

http://www.autismpartnership.com/profile/dr-ronald-leaf-1

 

He is one of the contributors to the ABA book I own, which I found incredibly useful, even though I adapted it to suit my standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadian, I think there may be a bunch of pieces to the puzzle you're really missing in your assessment, leading you to a b&w reduction. Prizant has multiple articles on the ST site and the ST team recommends ALL those materials and methodologies, mentioning them by name, specifically, as being great options for particular communication profiles.

 

https://www.socialthinking.com/Search%20Results#q=prizant Prizant articles

 

https://www.socialthinking.com/Articles?name=Social%20Thinking%20Social%20Communication%20Profile methods recommended for each communication profile

I think it might be good to read them before attempting to imply that I'm being b&w on this. I *read*, OhE, *a lot* and I compare what I read, then I arrive to my own conclusions. Your comments are proving the articles points, actually. Most people look at these and *assume* Prizant wrote them *for* the Social Thinking Company. If you take a closer look you will see that they were written for the magazine "Autism Spectrum Quarterly". http://www.asquarterly.com/about/

 

They have been uploaded to the Social Thinking website as they were published. Not written for their website!

 

Prizant's website (he is one of the authors of the SCERTS Model as I believe you already know) does not include the Social Thinking Company in the evidence based approaches that are used with SCERTS. See my quote and link in previous post.

 

As for the accusation of pseudoscience, that is obviously a bunch of turf war. Think about the absurdity here. ST is marketing to kids of average to above average IQ, many of whom never qualify for an IEP, never got diagnosed till later in life, and NEVER GOT ABA. The discussion is totally absurd. The kids getting IEPs and aggressive intervention early on are kids with ASD2 or 3, and those kids are borderline or not even good candidates for ST materials. Totally different markets, totally different audiences. ASD 2 corresponds to CSC on the social communication profiles, and if the IQ is low and the language low, those kids aren't referred for ST. They emphasized this over and over and over in the ST conference.

 

It's also really shocking to say that kids with a gifted IQ should be treated exactly as kids with ID, merely because they have the same (abitrary, non-genetics, non-biologically based) DSM diagnosis. So, for instance, an autism school we visited wanted to put my ds, highly verbal and with a gifted IQ, into a low ratio room with low IQ, non-verbal dc. Obviously this was DUMB. It would frustrate him to no end. The methodologies CANNOT be the same. That's the whole point.

 

It's also absurd to say ST eschews all behavioralism, as behaviorists go to this and MGW uses the term of herself. Now maybe she redefines it and maybe her def doesn't suit someone else, fine. But I will note the irony, that MGW is saying pretty much what you've always thought, that intervention should match the dc.

 

And THAT is why MGW positively refuses, completely refuses, to standardize her assessment tools. THAT is why that article on how her stuff is therefore pseudoscience, not research-based, blah blah, is coming about. The mentioned this over and over. There ARE REASONS why thinking people would choose NOT to take a complex, dynamic process that involves lots of processing in the brain in a space of two seconds (typical social processing response) and reduce it to a single, standardized question on a test. Think how many of these kids PASS pragmatics tests but are struggling at LIFE.

 

So they have the data to know which profiles of kids pass which tests but still struggle. It's all there in that article.

 

And the REASON it matters is because of what they do with the results. It's sounds really pious to say insurance companies, schools, etc. want standardized tools in order to give optimal service, but it's baloney. They want tools to DENY SERVICE. It's all about denying service, denying IEPs, deciding who gets service and who doesn't. So right now, many kids with ASD have NO services in the ps, none. Not ABA, not ST, nothing. The system uses the fact that they can pass a slow, single question at a time, non-realistic, formulaic, standardized test to decide whole swaths of kids don't need services. MGW is trying to increase access to services, cutting across DSM diagnostic boundaries. It's actually BRILLIANT and amazing. I sat at the conference with a SN coor for a ps in our state. What a brilliant thing to bring in psychs, SN coordinators, people who are then realizing hey, we can acknowledge deficits and HELP people.

 

A meta-cognitive approach for people of average to gifted IQ just makes sense. It's the compassion with which we ourselves want to be treated. I'm not sure why this is so confusing. It's about treatment appropriate to the person, not one size fits all. There are CONSEQUENCES to methodologies of intervention. EVERY professional I've taken my ds to has BEGGED ME NOT to do straight ABA. This IS the gold standard of intervention for someone in my ds' position.

 

There's an audience for the materials, reasons for what they do. The research is on their site, so people can just read. If you don't like it, don't do it.

OhE, you are not addressing any of the issues mentioned in the article and are risking sounding very contradictory to a lot of what you have claimed in the not so distant past.

 

Here's something on ToM for you:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24652601

 

If I sit and address theories here with you, it will not lead us anywhere. Let's just agree to disagree. The original link was an fyi, but sharing information which you are going to skim through and just spout off ST unsupported claims, is not productive use of my time or yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look up the names of some of the contributors to this paper, you will see that they are big names in behavior therapy/ ABA. R. Leaf is a psychologist that worked with Lovaas.

 

http://www.autismpartnership.com/profile/dr-ronald-leaf-1

 

 

Let's just say I'm not a big fan of Dr. Lovaas. A lot of the criticisms of ABA as a general methodology stem from how Dr. Lovaas treated kids back 2 decades ago. I don't know anything about this Dr. Leaf, but if he is one of Dr. Lovaas' protegees, that isn't a point in his favor but rather against it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is so difficult for a parent who isn't an expert, even one with a high level of general education, to sort out. "Pseudoscience" is a grave accusation, but I'm sympathetic to the idea that the skills in question are resistant to scientific measurement, and the name of B.F. Skinner is not a recommendation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is so difficult for a parent who isn't an expert, even one with a high level of general education, to sort out. "Pseudoscience" is a grave accusation, but I'm sympathetic to the idea that the skills in question are resistant to scientific measurement, and the name of B.F. Skinner is not a recommendation.

 

Bingo, that's the point. And MGW has put up tons of research on the ST site https://www.socialthinking.com/Research

 

This is stuff people in the field quibble over, like what is an evidence-based vs. empirically-supported, static vs. dynamic testing, who qualifies, etc. Huge money on the line here, huge legal battles. This is the kind of stuff that goes to the Supreme Court in the US, when people are dickering out what schools HAVE to provide and how you quantify that they HAVE to provide it. 

 

And now here's the article MGW and Pam Crooke wrote in response to Leaf. 

Socialthinking - Peer Reviewed Article: Association for Behavior Analysis International

Notice it's a peer reviewed article. You can't read the whole article without a subscription or access, foo.

Edited by OhElizabeth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just say I'm not a big fan of Dr. Lovaas. A lot of the criticisms of ABA as a general methodology stem from how Dr. Lovaas treated kids back 2 decades ago. I don't know anything about this Dr. Leaf, but if he is one of Dr. Lovaas' protegees, that isn't a point in his favor but rather against it.

CW, if it weren't for Lovaas, you would NOT have ABA today. Skinner came up with the theories (I won't go any further as to the testing he did on animals) but it was Lovaas that put it to the test with kids. I'm totally against the form of testing he did and there were better ways, but it is your child and several others that are receiving ABA, and although it might be contemporary ABA not traditional, it started from somewhere. If you remember, I was the one that kept my kid home and did my own brand of therapies *because* I didn't want him to have ABA. Let's not rehash the past, it is not where I wanted to go with this. After posting I read Prizant's articles that OhE linked. He also acknowledges the contribution of traditional ABA. It was an option in the days when people had no other. I definitely don't hold Skinner in high regard, but his contribution I do recognize.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bingo, that's the point. And MGW has put up tons of research on the ST site https://www.socialthinking.com/Research

 

This is stuff people in the field quibble over, like what is an evidence-based vs. empirically-supported, static vs. dynamic testing, who qualifies, etc. Huge money on the line here, huge legal battles. This is the kind of stuff that goes to the Supreme Court in the US, when people are dickering out what schools HAVE to provide and how you quantify that they HAVE to provide it.

This research is what Leaf et al were talking about. Did you read the paper, OhE?

 

And now here's the article MGW and Pam Crooke wrote in response to Leaf.

Socialthinking - Peer Reviewed Article: Association for Behavior Analysis International

Notice it's a peer reviewed article.

She has NOT addressed any of the key points made, which are *very* valid. I believe it is her arrogant remarks that triggered this in the first place. Perhaps you should read the points Leaf's team made!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And UCLA has developed its own version of social skills training called PEERS that is a competitor to ST so there's a conflict of interest for UCLA-affiliated folks. Not bashing PEERS as I've heard excellent things about it and it's something that I'm considering getting trained in down the road. But again, follow the money trail when evaluating statements bashing a particular type of therapy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And UCLA has developed its own version of social skills training called PEERS that is a competitor to ST so there's a conflict of interest for UCLA-affiliated folks. Not bashing PEERS as I've heard excellent things about it and it's something that I'm considering getting trained in down the road. But again, follow the money trail when evaluating statements bashing a particular type of therapy.

 

Interesting! And for the 5 days of stuff I've been to with them (MGW/PC), I didn't hear bashing. They really seemed "all of the above" in their approach. They want differentiated instruction and individualization. They want more access, more intervention, and less denial based on standardized test scores.

 

The ONLY thing I heard them poo poo, and it really caught my ear/eye/attention, was an over use on motivators/rewards. And the more I thought about it, the more interesting it has become to me and the more I wish I had taken the time to talk with them about it. But I think it's obvious IN CONTEXT what they're talking about. The talk about rewards, motivators, naturalistic, PRT, etc. It's not like they're saying NO motivators or rewards. But at some point SOME KIDS can fade supports or need less. They specialize in high school and adults in their practice. Obviously they want to fade external supports and get to internal supports and meta-cognitive where they can. To just say you have one approach and use it for everyone is sort of absurd. It's not differentiated.

 

It is taking me time to process the broad variety of videos we watched at the conference. It's so striking to me how high function kids, late diagnosed kids, late diagnosed adults, etc. are turning out. THEY are the ones ST most targets, not preschoolers, because they are the ones who DON'T get services, don't get IEPs. And they seemed to have such a passion about this, about providing appropriate methodologies for people who fell through the cracks otherwise. Our kids who get diagnosed at 18 or 24, make it through college, and then are unemployable. THOSE are the kids ST is worried about. You just would not believe (or maybe you would??) how many videos were about people who were unemployable. 

 

It haunts me. 

 

It makes some of these arguments seem really petty, because schools are only training for school, not life. They only seem to care about compliance, not whether they're turning out a person who will be able to have well-being and a sense of contribution to society. To me, I was like oh my lands, if I do everything the school says, I'm likely to get compliance, crank my ds through a system, and win at their game but lose at the game of LIFE.

 

And that really resonated to me, this idea that someone cares about how our kids will actually LIVE, how they will relate, whether they will have well-being, whether they will be able to participate in society in the way they want and contribute.

 

I doubt you'll see turf wars over PEERS, because it would be illogical. If PEERS is very similar, MGW/PC are probably already recommending it. We could go see. They list TONS of stuff. And maybe they do have turf wars for some reason, but just saying I'd be really surprised.

Edited by OhElizabeth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And UCLA has developed its own version of social skills training called PEERS that is a competitor to ST so there's a conflict of interest for UCLA-affiliated folks. Not bashing PEERS as I've heard excellent things about it and it's something that I'm considering getting trained in down the road. But again, follow the money trail when evaluating statements bashing a particular type of therapy.

While I do see what you are saying, I also see the validity in some of the points Leaf and his team were trying to make because these points are consistent with my own observations, long before I came across this article. It is these points that were not addressed. And I think it is clear that I'm not referring to the points in regards to ABA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ONLY thing I heard them poo poo, and it really caught my ear/eye/attention, was an over use on motivators/rewards. And the more I thought about it, the more interesting it has become to me and the more I wish I had taken the time to talk with them about it.

Fascinating, OhE! I made that point a few years ago as one of the strategies I'm against when it comes to ABA. It was a point of contention when I said it, but now you find it interesting because MGW said it :lol:

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The website has many arrogant claims that still remain unsubstantiated. I didn't sit and list the points I agreed with or have questions about since it was just an FYI, just to raise awareness that with therapies that are not evidence based, there's a lot left to chance. There's a lot that is questionable in her site. Like her claims that CBT therapists have had to send kids to her because they could not meet their needs. Really? So who are they? She is very diplomatic not to present things as bashing and I always follow my gut about people!

I am fascinated though, what makes a therapy pseudoscience to some vs another unsubstantiated therapy? It's not just the money trail!

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify something that appears to have been misunderstood, here. I am not supporting the pseudoscience accusation, but I do support that there are arrogant claims made that still remain unsubstantiated. I didn't sit and list the points I agreed with or have questions about since it was just an FYI, just to raise awareness that with therapies that are not evidence based, there's a lot left to chance. There's a lot that is questionable in her site. Like her claims that CBT therapists have had to send kids to her because they could not meet their needs. Really? So who are they? She is very diplomatic not to present things as bashing and I always follow my gut about people!

 

I am fascinated though, what makes a therapy pseudoscience to some vs another unsubstantiated therapy? It's not just the money trail!

Interesting, I actually found the study you linked to be extremely arrogant in its tone.

 

I find it somewhat funny that you seem to be all about evidence based, but that would lead you directly to ABA, since it is still considered the gold standard for autism treatment. I can still remember when they gave me the sheet of popular autism interventions to consider back in 2007 when ds was dx only ABA was evidenced based on that sheet. Floor time, what I choose, was only shown to be "promising", but would need much more research and studies. Heck, I am not even sure if it is now considered evidenced based.

 

I am just glad I didn't use evidenced based as my deciding factor. It would have been a terrible choice for ds. Just like social stories another evidenced based model is beyond a dreadful approach for ds. Both approaches only serve to exacerbate his anxiety. They are however a fantastic fit for many other families.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Floortime is evidence based, as is CBT. Not sure about social stories. But everyone is just getting caught up on words and missing the point. Fascinating how another poster had a thread running on RPM and everyone jumped on that one! Interesting how the same courtesies were not considered in that case! It was the whole point of all this, but everyone missed it because it was not important. I have my own opinions about ST and I don't intend to use it, but the point is, what is it that makes the attacks legit about RPM but not ST? Temple Grandin always speaks highly of Tito and his mom and about the approach she used that helped her son.

 

So, jumping on me does not explain or justify it:

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/645084-rapid-prompting-method/

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Floortime is evidence based, as is CBT. Not sure about social stories. But everyone is just getting caught up on words and missing the point. Fascinating how another poster had a thread running on RPM and everyone jumped on that one! Interesting how the same courtesies were not considered in that case! It was the whole point of all this, but everyone missed it because it was not important. I have my own opinions about ST and I don't intend to use it, but the point is, what is it that makes the attacks legit about RPM but not ST? Temple Grandin always speaks highly of Tito and his mom and about the approach she used that helped her son.

 

So jumping on me does not explain or justify it:

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/645084-rapid-prompting-method/

I sorry, I don't understand this post at all. You have completely lost me. I am not sure what point it is that you were hoping people would take away from reading the study. I am really not trying to be difficult or insulting. I truly do not understand what you are trying to convey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RPM was attacked in the thread I linked and it has in the past. The comments stated that it is not evidence based and it was linked to FC, which appears to be a self serving accusation if you ask me:

http://blog.asha.org/2015/05/19/the-pseudoscientific-phenom-facilitated-communication-makes-a-comeback/

 

Yet, we are suppose to take ASHA's word for it but not a paper publicized in the U.S. National Library of Medicine? I'm trying to see how things work in people's minds! And following the money trail works here as well, but I would also question racism.

 

As for me, I follow the beat of my own drum, or research in this case.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am fascinated though, what makes a therapy pseudoscience to some vs another unsubstantiated therapy? It's not just the money trail!

 

To me, pseudoscience is when practitioners of a particular therapy make a very scientific-sounding argument for the therapy but the argument doesn't make any sense if you actually know anything about science.

 

A couple of books I have read that struck me as pseudoscience are The Gift of Dyslexia by Ron Davis and Disconnected Kids by Robert Melillo (founder of Brain Balance Centers).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, pseudoscience is when practitioners of a particular therapy make a very scientific-sounding argument for the therapy but the argument doesn't make any sense if you actually know anything about science.

 

A couple of books I have read that struck me as pseudoscience are The Gift of Dyslexia by Ron Davis and Disconnected Kids by Robert Melillo (founder of Brain Balance Centers).

 

Agreed, and got that impression when I attempted to read Melillo's book, which was the reason why I returned it to the library without finishing it. I have not read the other.

 

The research paper has some good questions in that regard when it comes to ST. At least as far as my own personal research goes.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 And following the money trail works here as well, but I would also question racism.

 

 

Racism is a very serious accusation and one that should not be tossed around without providing some sort of proof. Just because the founder of RPM is from India does NOT mean that critics of her method hold any prejudice against South Asians. Plenty of methods founded by white American men get criticized- does that mean critics of those methods are racists against whites or sexists against men?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Racism is a very serious accusation and one that should not be tossed around without providing some sort of proof. Just because the founder of RPM is from India does NOT mean that critics of her method hold any prejudice against South Asians. Plenty of methods founded by white American men get criticized- does that mean critics of those methods are racists against whites or sexists against men?

Ummm, I did say I would question. It was not an accusation. Up thread you mentioned PEERS and how this paper was self serving because of PEERS being a UCLA product and Leaf's background. I won't even touch the criticism about Leaf as a person because he worked and studied under Lovaas. How is it that what I say becomes an accusation all of a sudden?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will point out as a closing here that the points in the paper were never addressed. Call the authors arrogant or whatever, everyone danced around the points made, but no one touched them. The only response was to bash the authors or attack me with things unrelated to the points found in this *official* report.

 

Walking away...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will point out as a closing here that the points in the paper were never addressed. Call the authors arrogant or whatever, everyone danced around the points made, but no one touched them. The only response was to bash the authors or attack me with things unrelated to the points found in this *official* report.

 

Walking away...

 

Actually, I addressed a problem with one of the citations and YOU ignored it. The authors cited the Howard et al research (which I provided the PubMed link to) to claim that "eclectic methods are ineffective" when all that proves is ONE particular PS program is ineffective. A program that as far as I can tell does not use ST materials so that it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether ST should be used or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I addressed a problem with one of the citations and YOU ignored it. The authors cited the Howard et al research (which I provided the PubMed link to) to claim that "eclectic methods are ineffective" when all that proves is ONE particular PS program is ineffective. A program that as far as I can tell does not use ST materials so that it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether ST should be used or not.

I did no such thing! Perhaps you should reread my posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A program that as far as I can tell does not use ST materials so that it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether ST should be used or not.

This is what is stated:

"The other eclectic intervention (generic programming; GP) was delivered to 16 children with a variety of diagnoses and needs for an average of 15-17 h per week."

 

As far as I can tell, YOU can't tell WHAT was used and are making ASSUMPTIONS that it wasn't ST.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...