this doesn't sound like the typical aba approach
astri
-- astri
======================
to email send to astri
======================
at volcano dot org
======================
Bob Badour
> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/iq-boost-for-toddlers-with-autism/?hp
This was discussed here a couple weeks ago.
Some have suggested it is like half-aba and half-son-rise. The study is
certainly hopeful; however, it has not been reproduced independently.
The study was performed by the two creators of the ESDM--one of whom is
like the chief scientist for autism speaks. One of the authors/inventors
mentioned current work to reproduce the result; however, I am not sure
whether that is independent reproduction or reproduction by another insider.
I saw the results spun a number of different ways. CNN spun the results
emphasizing the play aspects compared to ABA/IBI. An expert from Calgary
expressed certainty that the intensity of the program was responsible
for the results.
The interview you cite above emphasizes the play aspects and spells out
that the intensity of the program was comparable to the average
intensity of intervention given to the controls, which contradicts the
certainty expressed in Calgary.
The interview does give a little more information about the control
group suggesting that a significant number of controls received intense
ABA or ABA-like programs with an average intervention of 18.5 hours per
week. Still, it doesn't sound like the controls were very well
controlled--kinda like comparing a drug against random self-medication.
Some of the claims still seem stretched. I am unaware of a way to
perform an accurate g-loaded test on 18 or 24 month olds. Then again, I
seem to recall the test subjects started at 30 months. Even then,
performing an accurate IQ test sounds iffy to me. So the claims about
increased IQ sound more to me like marketing puffery than science. Of
course, I would love to be proved wrong.
I am not surprised that a program centered around play, parental
involvement on the child's terms, and no doubt an enriched environment
leads to better outcomes than classic ABA. I am concerned about the
intensity and the effort to divert the child's attention and focus. If
others reproduce the results, it will be interesting to then see how
varying the intensity affects the results.
Certainly, I can only encourage any program that teaches parents how to
connect better with their autistic children on autistic terms.
--
is there something in it for them, like maybe bailouts, if they can
panic us into doing something politically to cover them?
November 19, 2007 - John S Bolton
astri
> astri wrote:
>
>> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/iq-boost-for-toddlers-with-autism/?hp
>
> This was discussed here a couple weeks ago.
i know
this was more detail
and there's a link to the full program description in the blog
> Some have suggested it is like half-aba and half-son-rise. The study
seems the aba type portion is pivitol response training
> is certainly hopeful; however, it has not been reproduced
> independently. The study was performed by the two creators of the
> ESDM--one of whom is like the chief scientist for autism speaks. One
> of the authors/inventors mentioned current work to reproduce the
> result; however, I am not sure whether that is independent
> reproduction or reproduction by another insider.
agree needs more independent data
> I saw the results spun a number of different ways. CNN spun the
> results emphasizing the play aspects compared to ABA/IBI. An expert
> from Calgary expressed certainty that the intensity of the program
> was responsible for the results.
what i like is that the program is meant to be designed to fit into
everyday life and the family routines, not separated from it. and it
emphasizes the role of the parents rather than the "skills trainers."
> The interview you cite above emphasizes the play aspects and spells
> out that the intensity of the program was comparable to the average
> intensity of intervention given to the controls, which contradicts
> the certainty expressed in Calgary.
>
> The interview does give a little more information about the control
> group suggesting that a significant number of controls received
> intense ABA or ABA-like programs with an average intervention of 18.5
> hours per week. Still, it doesn't sound like the controls were very
> well controlled--kinda like comparing a drug against random
> self-medication.
true
> Some of the claims still seem stretched. I am unaware of a way to
> perform an accurate g-loaded test on 18 or 24 month olds. Then again,
> I seem to recall the test subjects started at 30 months. Even then,
> performing an accurate IQ test sounds iffy to me. So the claims about
> increased IQ sound more to me like marketing puffery than science. Of
> course, I would love to be proved wrong.
up until about age 6, iq scores don't predict adult iq very well. there
aren't any g-loaded iq tests that can be given to children below
about 30 months. however, it is possible to give a standardized
developmental test and get scores that look like iq scores (batelle
developmental inventory, merrill-palmer, bayley). there's at least one
test that calls itself an infant iq test (cattell), but i would highly
doubt that it's any more than a developmental scale that ignores motor
development.
actually, what i would bet the researchers are measuring in their
increase in iq scores is not actual iq increase, but increase in the
ability or willingness to participate in taking a test. this is true
for any very young children. if a preschooler or toddler scores poorly
on a test, it's impossible to tell whether the low score is a result of
"won't do" or "can't do."
> I am not surprised that a program centered around play, parental
> involvement on the child's terms, and no doubt an enriched
> environment leads to better outcomes than classic ABA. I am concerned
> about the intensity and the effort to divert the child's attention
> and focus. If others reproduce the results, it will be interesting to
> then see how varying the intensity affects the results.
the detailed precis suggests that they try to teach parents to learn
their children's cues to focus on things the child enjoys and is
interested in. that would certainly be an improvement.
> Certainly, I can only encourage any program that teaches parents how
> to connect better with their autistic children on autistic terms.
yes