It Takes a Team: 4 Steps to Building a Stronger Therapy Team

For students on the Autism spectrum, having a strong and reliable therapy team to support individual needs can be an important factor in student success. When members of a therapy team are collaborating seamlessly, a student is more likely to have high quality support across all areas of development (communication, social, cognitive, play, motor, and adaptive skills).

mixed working group looking at laptopThe pervasive nature of ASD across these areas means that multiple disciplines are necessarily involved in effective intervention (Donaldson and Stahmer, 2014). When we work together and have a narrow focus, we can help our students make a great deal of progress. Gone are the days of a Speech Language Pathologist, Physical Therapist or Occupational Therapist taking a student away for traditional pull out therapy and leaving no time for debriefing with the classroom team.

Who comprises the therapy team is determined on a case-by-case basis. You may be wondering where to start with this sometimes daunting task of building a strong and supportive team. Below I will discuss some strategies that are evidenced-based and the ways that I incorporate them into my busy life as a speech language pathologist.

Pairing
One of the first things that I always try to do is build rapport with staff, which is known as a behavioral principle called pairing. It is important to build rapport and/or pair with team members, especially if you are new to the team or if other new members have joined. It may sound like very basic advice, but as clinicians we are very busy and sometimes we feel that we do not have time for this piece. I am urging you to put this time with staff on the top of your priority list. Once you have a good rapport with team members, it allows you to share ideas and collaborate more easily and more effectively.

Sharing
The next tip I have is to share the goals your student is working on. If you are the teacher, share the student’s IEP goals with the paraprofessionals and explain why you are teaching particular tasks. Knowledge is power! If you are the occupational therapist, please share your student’s therapy goals with the team. Therapy takes place all day, across settings and across instructors. If the team does not know what the goals are, they will have no idea how to address them across the school day.

Reinforcement
Students and professionals benefit from reinforcement! People feel good about the work at hand when they receive positive reinforcement. Let the paraprofessional know that they are doing a great job with their student(s). Everyone likes to get praise for a job well done!

Data
Another way that we can assure that our collaboration is helping the student is by collecting daily data on skills from all domains (i.e. behavior, academic, communication). When we, as a team, create a data sheet that captures the skills and specific targets we are addressing, we can use this across the student’s day. When we take this data and analyze the progress, we can all make informed decisions about a student’s programming needs. I have included a free team-based daily data sheet from Stages Learning. You can use this data sheet to track a variety of skills.

In my 14 years practicing in the field, the majority of people that I encounter are driven by a desire to see their students. However, even with the best intentions, we may face barriers in collaborating with other staff members. Follow the tips mentioned above and reach out to colleagues who seem to need additional support. I try to continually assess the needs of the teams I work with throughout the year. Maybe the team needs a refresher on a certain skill area – see if you can work this into your yearly professional development time. When we work together as a team, we can help so many students achieve their goals!


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

rosemarie-griffin-headshotRosemarie Griffin, MA, CCC-SLP, BCBA is a licensed speech language pathologist and board certified behavior analyst. Currently she splits her time between a public school system and a private school for students with autism. She is passionate about lecturing on effective communication services for students with autism and has done so at the local and national level. Rosemarie also enjoys spending time with her family, playing the harp and shopping.

Article originally posted on Stages Learning Materials Blog.

Pick of the Week: Save 20% on 2D to 3D Learning Tools!

2D to 3D POW Email image v2

We’ve got all the tools you need to develop imaginative play skills with our favorite hands-on learning storybooks and games!

This week only, save 20% on your purchase of these select 2D to 3D learning tools by using promo code 3D2017 at checkout!

*Promotion is valid until March 27, 2016 at 11:59pm ET. Offer cannot be applied to previous purchases, combined with any other offers, transferred, refunded, or redeemed and/or exchanged for cash or credit. Different Roads to Learning reserves the right to change or cancel this promotion at any time. To redeem offer at differentroads.com, enter promo code 3D2017 at checkout.

 

Tip of the Week: Teaching Language—Focus on the Stage, Not the Age

CHILD IN SPEECH THERAPYTeaching language skills is one of the most frequent needs for children with autism, but also one of the most misunderstood skillsets amongst both parents and practitioners. The desire to hear your learner speak in full sentences can be overwhelming, making it especially difficult to take a step back and consider what it means to communicate and how communication skills develop in neurotypical children. Many times we get hung up on what a child should be capable of communicating at a certain age, rather than focusing on what they are capable of communicating at this stage of development.

Many practitioners and curricula utilize Brown’s Stages of Language Development.* Brown described the first five stages of language development in terms of the child’s “mean length of utterance” (or MLU) as well as the structure of their utterances.

Brown_Grammatical_Structures_ChartFrom aacinstitute.org

 

Sometimes it is necessary to compare a child to his or her same-age peers in order to receive services or measure progress, but it can be detrimental to focus on what a child should be doing at a specific age instead of supporting them and reinforcing them for progress within their current stage.

Research has suggested that teaching beyond the child’s current stage results in errors, lack of comprehension, and difficulty with retention. Here are some common errors you may have witnessed:

  • The child learns the phrase “I want _____ please.” This phrase is fine for “I want juice, please” or “I want Brobee, please,” but it loses meaning when overgeneralized to “I want jump, please” or “I want play, please.” It’s better to allow your learner to acquire hundreds of 1-2 word mands (or requests) before expecting them to speak in simple noun+verb mands.
  • The child learns to imitate only when the word “say” is used. Then the child makes statements such as “say how are you today,” as a greeting or “say I’m sorry,” when they bump into someone accidentally. Here, the child clearly has some understanding of when the phrases should be used without understanding the meanings of the individual words within each phrase.
  • The child learns easily overgeneralized words such as “more.” This is useful at times, but the child can start using it for everything. Instead of saying “cookie” he’ll say “more.” Instead of saying “train,” he’ll say “more.” And he may say “more” when the desired item is not present, leaving the caregiver frustrated as he/she tries to guess what the child is requesting. Moreover, as language begins to develop, he may misuse it by saying things such as “more up, please.”
  • The child learns to say “Hello, how are you today?” upon seeing a person entering a room. A child comes into the classroom and the learner looks up, says “Hello, how are you today?” The child responds, “Great! Look at the cool sticker I got!” Your learner then doesn’t respond at all, or may say “fine,” as he has practiced conversations of greeting.

These are only a few of the common language errors you may see. While you may want your learner to speak in longer sentences, your goal should be to have them communicate effectively. With this goal in mind, it becomes essential to support them at their current stage, which means it’s essential to assess them and understand how to help them make progress.

This is why I always use the VB-MAPP to assess each child and make decisions about language instruction. I need to have a full understanding of how the learner is using language, and then move them through each stage in a clear progression. I may want the child to say “Hello, how are you today?” But when I teach them that, do they understand those individual words? Do they comprehend what today means as opposed to yesterday or tomorrow? Do they generalize the use of “how” to other questions?

As you make treatment decisions for your learner, think about their current stage and talk about how to support your child with both a Speech Language Pathologist and an ABA therapist.

*Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

WRITTEN BY SAM BLANCO, MSED, BCBA
Sam is an ABA provider for students ages 3-15 in NYC. Working in education for twelve years with students with Autism Spectrum Disorders and other developmental delays, Sam utilizes strategies for achieving a multitude of academic, behavior, and social goals. Sam is currently a PhD candidate in Applied Behavior Analysis at Endicott College. She is also a lecturer in the ABA program at The Sage Colleges.

 

 

Focus on Generalization and Maintenance

On more than one occasion, I’ve been in the situation that a student will only demonstrate a skill in my presence. And I’ve heard from other colleagues that they have had similar experiences. This is highly problematic. When it happens with one of my students, there is only one person I can blame: myself.  A skill that a student can only demonstrate in my presence is a pretty useless skill and does nothing to promote independence.

TeacherSo what do you do when you find yourself in this situation? You reteach, with a focus on generalization. This means that, from the very beginning, you are teaching with a wide variety of materials, varying your instructions, asking other adults to help teach the skill, and demonstrating its use in a variety of environments. Preparing activities takes more time on the front-end for the teacher, but saves a ton of time later because your student is more likely to actually master the skill. (Generalization, after all, does show true mastery.)

Hopefully, you don’t have to do this, though. Hopefully, you’ve focused on generalization from the first time you taught the skill. You may see generalization built into materials you already use, such as 300-Noun List at AVB press.

Another commonly cited issue teachers of children with autism encounter is failure to maintain a skill. In my mind, generalization and maintenance go hand-in-hand, in that they require you to plan ahead and consider how, when, and where you will practice acquired skills. Here are a few tips that may help you with maintenance of skills:

  • Create notecards of all mastered skills. During the course of a session, go through the notecards and set aside any missed questions or activities. You might need to do booster sessions on these. (This can also be an opportunity for extending generalization by presenting the questions with different materials, phrases, environments, or people.)
  • Set an alert on your phone to remind you to do a maintenance test two weeks, four weeks, and eight weeks after the student has mastered the skill.
  • Create a space on your data sheets for maintenance tasks to help you remember not only to build maintenance into your programs, but also to take data on maintenance.

Considering generalization and maintenance from the outset of any teaching procedure is incredibly important. Often, when working with students with special needs, we are working with students who are already one or more grade levels behind their typically developing peers. Failing to teach generalization and maintenance, then having to reteach, is a waste of your students’ time.

WRITTEN BY SAM BLANCO, MSED, BCBA

Sam is an ABA provider for students ages 3-15 in NYC. Working in education for twelve years with students with Autism Spectrum Disorders and other developmental delays, Sam utilizes strategies for achieving a multitude of academic, behavior, and social goals. Sam is currently a PhD candidate in Applied Behavior Analysis at Endicott College. She is also a lecturer in the ABA program at The Sage Colleges.

 

 

Focus on Reinforcement

Focus on Reinforcement

Teaching can be incredibly overwhelming, especially in a special education classroom. Between paperwork, lesson planning, updating bulletin boards, and actually teaching, the day can get pretty hairy. Sometimes, that stress leads to a short temper, which can lead to a punitive classroom environment.

If things seem to be going in the wrong direction in your classroom, the first thing you should do is focus on reinforcement. Here are a few steps to consider:

  1. Identify 1-3 behaviors you would like to see your students exhibiting. For instance, maybe you’d like to see an increase in hand-raising (as opposed to calling out.) Clearly define the behaviors you want to see.
  2. Set up a contingency for increasing those behaviors. Maybe you’ll wear a MotivAider to give yourself a reminder throughout the day to provide verbal praise to students exhibiting the target behavior. Maybe you’ll have students earn points that they can exchange for other things, such as a homework pass or lunch with the teacher. Maybe you’ll encourage students to recognize each other when they engage in the target behavior.
  3. Teach the students about the target behavior(s). Introduce the goals to the students. It’s helpful to create a sign or other visual to remind students about the new goals.

While these are simple steps, providing more verbal praise and other reinforcement can turn around a classroom with too much time spent on reprimands and punishments.

It’s also helpful to remember (especially for new teachers) that you can make changes at any time. One of my mentors in my first year of teaching told me to tell my class we had gotten off track, so we were having a brand new first day of school. (I was teaching fourth and fifth grade students with emotional behavioral disorders.) It was shocking how well that new first day of school went over. The students were excited about the idea of a “fresh start” in the middle of the school year, and it helped me get back on track with creating a more positive learning environment.

Ultimately, the goal is to teach students about appropriate behavior by spending more time showing them what they’re doing right than focusing on what they’re doing wrong.

 

WRITTEN BY SAM BLANCO, MSED, BCBA

Sam is an ABA provider for students ages 3-15 in NYC. Working in education for twelve years with students with Autism Spectrum Disorders and other developmental delays, Sam utilizes strategies for achieving a multitude of academic, behavior, and social goals. Sam is currently a PhD candidate in Applied Behavior Analysis at Endicott College. She is also a lecturer in the ABA program at The Sage Colleges.

 

Autism and the Peer Review Process

Autism peer review process

If one wanted to market a scientifically-unproven intervention, device, or pill as a valid autism treatment to families affected by autism, how would one go about it? Glossy pictures? Glowing testimonials? Miracle claims? Hyped social media pitches? Charming infomercials? Answer: All of the above.

And, here’s another marketing strategy: portraying one’s product as having scientific validation when, in fact, such validation does not exist. To do this, one might make references to “scientific evidence” in material that, upon systematic inspection, is less than convincing.

I was reminded of this when I recently reviewed a web page that boldly claims, “SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH Verifies The Son-Rise Program® WORKS!” Findings support the efficacy of parent-delivered SRP intervention for promoting social-communicative behavior in children with autism spectrum disorders.”

What are these findings? On the website, the Son-Rise marketers provide a link to a key source of their “verification” – a paper entitled “Training Parents to Promote Communication and Social Behavior in Children with Autism: The Son-Rise Program”. This paper, written by a trio of Northwestern University researchers, presents a study of the purported benefits of intervention delivered by 35 parents of children with autism who participated in a five-day parent-training course on Son-Rise Program methods, as well as an advanced follow-up course 3-12 months later. Parents completed The Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist (ATEC), a rating scale that contains items on communication, sociability, cognition, physical status and behavior.

The authors divided the 35 parents into three groups based on how many hours of intervention the parents reported giving their child each week during the interval between their first and second Son-Rise trainings (i.e., no intervention [11 parents], 1–19 hours [13 parents], 20 or more hours [11 parents]). The authors present results reflecting statistically significant higher ATEC scores at second ATEC completion relative to the first, and they suggest that these higher scores reflect real improvements in communication, social skills, and sensory and cognitive awareness. They go on to point out that children with greater gains were more likely to have had more hours of parent-administered SRP.

As linked on the Son Rise web-site, this study is typeset like a published research article, prompting me to try to determine which peer-reviewed journal had published it. Through email correspondence, the third author, Cynthia K. Thompson, reported that the study had not been published because the team had decided to collect additional data prior to submission for peer review. In other words, this study is a “work in progress” and certainly not a verification of treatment effectiveness. In fact, this practice of repeatedly analyzing results prior to the close of data collection is, in itself, problematic from a scientific standpoint, as the process involves conducting many analyses that often yield varying results but are never reported (see Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011).

One of the mechanisms that make science such a powerful engine for progress is the reliance on the peer review process. The scientific method requires that, when a scientist makes an assertion (e.g., “This treatment works!”), (s)he knows that there exists a responsibility to show other scientists how they arrived at their conclusions with enough specificity that others can replicate the study. It is through this process of peer review that faulty assertions about the data are challenged and, hopefully, rejected in short order.

Typically, in the peer review process, an editor reviews a manuscript and, if deemed appropriate, shares the manuscript with a team of reviewers with demonstrated expertise in the relevant subject area. In many cases, these reviewers are “blind” to the identity of the authors and vice-versa, so as to minimize personal biases (e.g., affiliations, personal grudges). The reviewers are charged with the task of evaluating the contents of the manuscript on the basis of scientific merit, including the methodology, statistical analyses of the data and logic of the authors’ conclusions. The reviewers then describe, in writing, their opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the study and make a recommendation regarding publication. The editor synthesizes this feedback and provides a summary to the author(s). In many cases, the editor will reject the manuscript for publication altogether. In other cases, he or she may require revisions, acknowledge limitations, temper conclusions or make other substantive changes prior to publication.

In the case of the manuscript written by Thompson and her colleagues, I suspect that, if it were submitted to a journal with a legitimate peer review process, a multitude of questions would be raised about it, including:

  • participant recruitment (35 self-selected parents out of a pool of 430 parents, many of whom participated in the first training but apparently did not return for more)
  • group distribution (non-random group assignment)
  • the outcome measure (one brief checklist completed by parents)
  • treatment fidelity (no way of verifying the quality or quantity of actual treatment), and
  • control for placebo effect, expectancy bias or any number of potential threats to the validity of responses.

And, despite some effort on the part of the authors to control for this, there is no real way of knowing what other interventions the child was engaged in during the interval between their parents’ first and second Son Rise training.

Of course, scientists who make up peer review committees are vulnerable to the same kinds of human frailties as the rest of humanity (i.e., jealousy, ego, bias, profit motive); however, the communal nature of the process, as well as another scientific safeguard- replication of results by others- helps to minimize the degree to which these frailties impact decisions regarding the quality of a study and our confidence in the results. The scientific method is far from perfect, but it is probably the best game in town for vetting new interventions.

Parents and other consumers of product pitches can watch for treatment claims that look like they have been established through the scientific process but in actuality fall short. Discuss potential treatment options with licensed and/or board certified experts whom you trust. Practice skepticism, especially when fantastical claims are made. Use resources, such as ASAT’s Treatment Summaries for quick reference. Families affected by autism deserve honest, direct communication about the state of the science for treatment options. Accept nothing less.

References

Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.

Cite This:

Mruzek, D. W. (2012). Focus on science: “Verification” and the peer review process. Science in Autism Treatment, 9(3), 18-19.

About The Author

Daniel W. Mruzek, Ph.D., BCBA-D is an Associate Professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC), Division of Neurodevelopmental and Behavioral Pediatrics in western New York. He received his doctoral training in Psychology at the Ohio State University and is a former Program Director at the Groden Center in Providence, Rhode Island. Currently, he is an associate professor and serves as a clinician and consultant, training school teams and supporting families of children with autism and other developmental disabilities.

Mruzek coordinates his division’s psychology postdoctoral fellowship program in developmental disabilities and is an adjunct faculty member in the University of Rochester Warner School of Education. He is actively involved as a researcher on several externally funded autism intervention research studies and has authored and co-authored more than 20 peer-reviewed articles and book chapters on autism and other developmental disabilities. Dr. Mruzek is on the editorial board for the journals Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, Behavior Analysis in Practice, Journal of Mental Health Research in Developmental Disabilities, and Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Dr. Mruzek is a former member of the Board of Directors of the Association for Science in Autism Treatment.

To learn more about ASAT, please visit their website at www.asatonline.org. You can also sign up for ASAT’s free newsletter, Science in Autism Treatment, and like them on Facebook!

Who’s Most Qualified To Work With Your Child.txt

Parents of children with autism are faced with a wide range of choices when it comes to the education and support of their children. The most important question of all is who’s most qualified to work with your child? Although a great deal of research supports Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) as the only effective treatment for autism, there are still many other interventions that are touted as potentially helpful. Research shows that combining ABA with other interventions is less effective than implementing it alone, with high fidelity and intensity (Howard, 2005).

Who's Most Qualified To Work With Your Child? Not all behavioral professionals are created equal. There is little control over the use of terms like “behavior specialist,” “behavior therapist,” and “behaviorist.” Just about anyone can claim to be one of these, often on the basis of very limited training and virtually no on-going supervision.  Consumers are often not aware that these are uncontrolled titles, and may put their trust in untrained, unsupervised practitioners. 

The problem of lack of quality control in behavior analysis was addressed by the development of state certifications for behavior analysts, and eventually the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB) was formed. 

BACB credentials allow consumers some degree of confidence in the education, training, and supervision of the professionals they entrust their children to.  If someone claims to have one of these credentials, consumers should be able to find them on the BACB registries, easily accessed online at www.bacb.com

What does the BACB mean for consumers?  Those seeking behavioral interventions for themselves or others can look for professionals who have met the standards of the Behavior Analyst Certification Board with the confidence that that they have a minimum level of education, experience, and supervision and that they are obligated to follow an ethical and professional code.  Whether looking for a school program, privately hiring a professional, or seeking insurance coverage of services, the BACB designations can help consumers to determine if professionals and staff members providing services are well-qualified. They are also not at all easy to accomplish, so it is safe to say that someone with one of these credentials has achieved a high level of understanding of the science of behavior and the practice of behavior analysis.

Some states now license and certify behavioral professionals, and the standards for state licensure and/or certification may be more or less than those required by the BACB.  Having a BACB credential in addition to state licensure ensures that the professional also meets the BACB’s high standards. 

Credential Minimum education requirement Type of work Supervision
Registered Behavior Technician (RBT) High school diploma or equivalent Direct implementation of behavioral interventions (paraprofessionals) Ongoing by a BCaBA, BCBA, or BCBA-D
BCaBA Bachelor’s degree Practice under supervision, supervise RBTs Ongoing by a BCBA or BCBA-D
BCBA Master’s degree Independent practice, supervision of BCaBAs and RBTs None
BCBA-D Doctoral degree Independent practice, supervision of BCaBAs and RBTs None

 

Guest post written by Dana Reinecke, PhD, BCBA-D.

 

References

www.bacb.com, retrieved January 28, 2017

Howard, J. S., Sparkman, C. R., Cohen, H. G., Green, G., & Stanislaw, H.  (2005).  A comparison of intensive behavior analytic and eclectic treatments for young children with autism.  Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26, 359-383.

National Autism Center.  (2015). Findings and conclusions: National standards project, phase 2. Randolph, MA: Author.

Spotting The Difference Between Fake and Real News

Spotting The Difference Between Fake and Real News

The decisions of many consumers are influenced by what they read in the newspaper or on the Internet and hear about on television or radio. It is our belief that access to effective treatment for the autism community is enhanced by accurate representations of autism treatment by these media outlets. Unfortunately, many media representations are fraught with inaccuracies. Here’s what you need to know about spotting the difference between fake and real news.  

Effective treatments typically receive less press attention because their providers are often focusing on maximizing outcomes in an accountable manner rather than on soliciting media attention. They are also limited by ethics codes on how they can promote their treatment and services.

Many of you may be familiar with the Latin phrase, “Caveat Emptor,” which means “the buyer alone is responsible for checking the quality and suitability of goods before a purchase is made.” With scores of “miracle cures” and “breakthroughs” for autism receiving widespread media attention well before they have been shown to be beneficial through credible, peer-reviewed research, “Caveat Lector: Let the Reader Beware” seems to be a very suitable guiding principle across all media platforms (e.g., print, radio, television, Internet) particularly at a time when “fake news” is becoming commonplace. In other words, the reader is put in the position of being him/herself responsible for evaluating the quality and suitability of information being presented to him or her.

As a consumer, you bear a responsibility to scrutinize sensational claims related to various autism treatments and to be knowledgeable enough to consider such stories through a skeptical lens. We wish you did not need to work so hard to differentiate good information from bad, but that is the sad reality of autism treatment today, with 500+ treatments being touted. Unfortunately, many writers and journalists are not well versed in research methods, unless they specifically write about science, which is a very small portion of all individuals writing about autism out there.  With all this in mind, when reading or hearing about an autism story in the media, please consider the following questions:

About the Intervention

  • Does the article or story describe how the intervention actually helps individuals with autism? In what ways?
  • Are those ways observable and measurable? Substantial? Meaningful?
  • Does the article or story report the costs of the intervention? Are these costs reasonable, both in monetary and human resource terms?
  • Is there any report of harm imposed by this intervention? What are the risks? What are the side effects? Does the article or story appear balanced between these?
  • Who can carry out this intervention? What kind of education, training and supervision do individuals need to have before implementing the intervention?

About the Experts

  • Whom did the author interview for this story and what are this person’s qualifications? Is he/she presented as an expert?
  • Is the interviewee making claims of efficacy/effectiveness that are supported by scientific data? What does the interviewee/expert stand to gain from this story? Who may benefit financially from this particular media exposure? How would they benefit?

About the Underlying Scientific Support

  • Did the article or story mention the existence of research articles published in peer-reviewed journals documenting the efficacy of the intervention method discussed? If not, could it mean that no such research exists?
  • If so, did the writer comment on whether these studies were well designed? Are any limitations to the studies revealed?
  • Is this study or studies presented as an extension of existing work, or rather sensationalized as a “breakthrough,” keeping in mind that often interventions are pitched as a “breakthrough” when indeed, they are not?
  • On the other hand, does the author acknowledge the absence of underlying research?  Is this acknowledgement rightly framed as a concern or rather just potentially baseless but encouraging statements suggesting that “groundbreaking research” is coming soon?

Some Final Questions to Consider

  • Are other media outlets reporting on this story or topic? If yes, favorably or unfavorably? Did they consider research data in their articles?
  • Has ASAT responded to this article via its Media Watch efforts? Please visit this page to peruse our library of archived media watch letters.
  • Has the author consulted with an unbiased and knowledgeable individual for his/her input about the intervention described (e.g., someone who is not personally benefitting from the story or someone with a strong grasp of research)?

 

Sadly, inaccurate and biased portrayals of autism treatments in the media are abundant.  In our experiences, inaccurate portrayals often fall within the following themes:

  • Exaggerating the research support for an intervention for which little or no research exists;
  • Ignoring the research basis that may already exist for the treatment in focus;
  • Disregarding the relevance of science;
  • Disregarding position statements from various professional organizations that may warn against or discourage the use of a particular treatment; and
  • Failing to acknowledge research that does NOT support a particular intervention.

Being mindful of these themes will enable you to truly embody the principle of “Caveat Lector.”  Please consider liking our Facebook page as we routinely showcase our Media Watch efforts. ASAT’s Media Watch responds to both accurate and inaccurate media portrayals of autism treatment in an effort to increase access to effective treatment for the autism community.

Citation:

Celiberti, D., & Wozniak, R. (2016). Caveat Lector: Let the reader beware. Science in Autism Treatment, 13(1), 8-9.

Author Biographies:

David Celiberti, PhD, BCBA-D, is the part time Executive Director of ASAT and Past-President, a role he served from 2006 and 2012. He is the Co-Editor of ASAT’s newsletter, Science in Autism Treatment. He received his PhD in clinical psychology from Rutgers University in 1993. Dr. Celiberti has served on a number of advisory boards and special interest groups in the field of autism, applied behavior analysis, and early childhood education, and been an active participant in local fundraising initiatives to support after school programming for economically disadvantaged children. He works in private practice and provides consultation to public and private schools and agencies in underserved areas. He has authored several articles in professional journals and presents frequently at regional, national, and international conferences. In prior positions, Dr. Celiberti taught courses related to applied behavior analysis (ABA) at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, supervised individuals pursuing BCBA certifications, and conducted research in the areas of ABA, family intervention, and autism.

Renee Wozniak, PhD, BCBA-D, joined the ASAT Board of Directors in 2016. Prior to serving as a Board Member, Renée was a part of ASAT’s Externship, where she assumed the roles of Media Watch Co-Coordinator and Media Watch Lead. Renée received her Ph.D. in Special Education, focusing on Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), from Arizona State University. She has worked in the fields of ASD and ABA in a variety of capacities since 1998, serving in public schools as a special education teacher, behavior intervention teacher specialist and district-wide autism trainer, and in clinical and home-based ABA programs as a research assistant, clinical/behavior interventionist, and program supervisor. Renée has trained families, therapists, teachers, teacher candidates, paraprofessionals, administrators, and others working with individuals with autism, and has instructed master’s level ABA, ASD, research and special education courses. She continues to stay involved in the field as a home-based ABA program supervisor, and as an instructor in ABA and ASD master’s degree programs. Renée is passionate about helping individuals with autism and their families by supporting and disseminating scientific research in autism treatment.