I’ve been reading Mr Doherty for awhile now. He keeps a blog that discusses his views on autism advocacy and to his credit he stresses the importance of evidence based methods for helping his autistic son, Conor. This means he holds the vaccine/autism bull in as much disdain as I do.
However, this would seem to be the beginning and the end of his skeptical nature. He has, over recent weeks, been involved in a blog war with Michelle Dawson during which he claims (as far as I can see) that Ms Dawson is actively campaigning against ABA based therapies. Ms Dawson claims (with some justification) that what she is doing is suggesting that ABA is not the only methodology that helps. He makes occasional side references to this issue in the comments of blog posts such as this one in response to Kristina’s take on autism mythology:
Today, in place of Bettleheim, we have new forces ready to condemn parents of autistic children. Bettleim’s handiwork today is done by those who attack parents because they advocate for improved health and education of their autistic children and are accused of violating the human rights of all persons with autism by doing so. One hurtful urban myth gives way to another.
This was the first of Mr Doherty’s strawmen army that I noticed. I asked Mr Doherty to back up his position with a quote from someone actually doing that:
Could you provide an example of someone attacking parents of autistic people for advocating for improved health and education for the reason that these same people think that improved health and education violate human rights?
To which he answered:
If you want an example try this one, a comment attributed to Ms. Dawson in reference to parent advocates “they make me sick†is what she is quoted as having said
And he is correct, that’s indeed what she said. However, that wasn’t what I asked. I asked for a quote that showed someone attacking parents of autistic people for advocating for improved health and education for the reason that these same people think that improved health and education violate human rights, which Ms Dawson’s stated opinion clearly does not. Mr Doherty’s reply was:
I gave you a very obvious example. You simply refuse to accept the statement for what it is.
Which is just a new variation on the close minded doggerel.
Today I noted a new post from Mr Doherty. This post is simply one logical fallacy after another. He starts of by defining ‘Sirens’ for us as those who would seduce sailors to their deaths with sweet sounds.
Lets not forget that a siren is also that which makes a long, wailing, irritating noise.
Anyway. Lets address Mr Doherty’s first strawman:
Parents and families of children newly diagnosed with autism will face many daunting, at times overwhelming challenges. As the father of a soon to be 11 year old boy with classic Autism Disorder I have dealt with those realities for the 9 years since my son was diagnosed at age 2. One of the more seductive challenges that parents will face is the siren calls of those who oppose any effort to treat, educate or heaven forbid change an autistic child for the better. Do not listen to the sirens’ call.
This paragraph encapsulates the position of the rest of the post perfectly. It also reveals its weakness. It is simply a strawman argument. A regurgitation and expansion of his comment on Kristina’s blog. No one I know has ever opposed ‘any effort to treat, educate or change an autistic child for the better’. If Mr Doherty believes they have I would appreciate seeing supporting material or quotes. As has happened many times before, Mr Doherty is taking a very easy to understand proposition – that desiring a cure for autism is not analogous to respecting autistic people – and imbuing it with false exaggerations in order to demonise that position.
Here’s another example:
The sirens will outright mislead you and tell you that autism is not a disorder or a disability, that it is simply another variation in the human condition, neither good nor bad
Again, this is simply false. I personally tell people that autism is both a disability _and_ a difference. To pretend that being autistic cannot present one with disabling situations is ridiculous _so nobody I know presents it as a belief_. That includes Ms Dawson.
The sirens will not talk about such realities as lack of communication, self injurious behavior, or lack of awareness of potentially life threatening dangers posed by automobiles or broken glass. The sirens will not tell you that some autistic children are sent home from neighborhood schools sometimes in handcuffs or that they are sometimes housed in criminal detention centers for youths because no decent facilities exist in which autistic youths and adults with severe behavioral issues can reside. They will not talk to you about autistic adults residing in mental health hospitals.
Here we say Mr Doherty taking the ‘scattergun’ approach to logical fallacy. Just about every sentence in that scaremongering paragraph is fallacious. For example, its no secret that my daughter doesn’t speak. Ballastexitenz has a whole category regarding self-injurious behaviour. I have written more than once about the horrors that can happen when there is a lack of decent facilities for autistic youths and adults, as has Ballastexistenz, Mike Stanton, Kristina Chew and most of the online community Mr Doherty would think of as falling under the umbrella of ‘sirens’.
The attraction of the siren’s call is the attraction of sweet surrender. If a parent is told that their child’s autism is a beautiful thing, a joy to be embraced by the parent it will be easier to let go, to give up and to refrain from taking on the enormous challenge of doing the best that can be done for your child. It is not easy to raise, care for and educate many autistic children. It is absolutely one of the most rewarding tasks a parent can face but it is challenging, stressful and costly. It would be easy to give up and let go.
Here we have another old ‘ND’ logical fallacy – that accepting autism is the same as doing nothing. I can personally attest that this is laughably fallacious. What my wife and I spend most of our time on is raising, caring for and educating our children – including our autistic daughter. Mr Doherty’s implication that those of us who don’t believe in the things he does have have given up is a particularly cowardly and distasteful Ad Hominem fallacy.
Moving away from logical fallacies, Mr Doherty expresses what – to my mind – are gravely disturbing opinions regarding the nature of acceptance and moving on:
The sirens will tell you not to mourn for your autistic child, to accept your child’s autism; the will even tell you to find joy in your child’s autism. They will encourage you to accept your child as he or she is and not to seek to change your child.
Mr Doherty seems to be alluding to the essay ‘Don’t Mourn For Us‘ with this statement. If so it is an incorrect reference. Here’s what Jim Sinclair says about mourning:
Some amount of grief is natural as parents adjust to the fact that an event and a relationship they’ve been looking forward to isn’t going to materialize. But this grief over a fantasized normal child needs to be separated from the parents’ perceptions of the child they do have: the autistic child who needs the support of adult caretakers and who can form very meaningful relationships with those caretakers if given the opportunity
Mr Doherty’s exhortation to wallow in grief seems to me to be the opposite of sense and practicality. There have been times in my life I have mourned friends and family who have died. I don’t believe it is healthy to try and force a relationship that is motivated or fed on grief. The autistic child is _still alive_ . To behave as if it is dead is not, in my opinion, a good thing for parent or child.
I would indeed heartily recommend finding the joy in your child’s autism. It is there to be found if you look. My autistic child is a delight. Yesterday was her 7th birthday and we had a great time doing the things _she_ likes. We didn’t have a party. We didn’t make her unwrap her presents. We didn’t have lots of people around. It was just the five of us. We did it that way as that’s what _she_ feels comfortable with. It was truly a lovely day. I don’t understand why Mr Doherty would rather (if I understand him) I turned these sort of days into a funeral dirge.
I would also like to once again quote from one of my favourite peer reviewed papers entitled: _”A qualitative investigation of changes in the belief systems of families of children with autism or Down syndrome”_. In this paper the authors have investigated the lives of families who have autistic members or members with Down’s Syndrome:
Over time, parents may experience changes in ways of seeing their child, themselves and the world. These new perspectives may encompass profound rewards, enrichments, and the appreciation of the positive contributions made by people with disabilities
and
A wide range of positive changes or transformational outcomes have been reported by parents of children with disabilities, including: the development of personal qualities such as patience, love, compassion and tolerance (Summers et al 1989; Behr & Murphy 1993; Scorgie & Sobsey 2000; Kausar et al. 2003); improved relationships with family members and others (Stainton & Besser 1998; Scorgie & Sobsey 2000; Kausar et al 2003); stronger spiritual or religious beliefs (Yatchmenoffet al. 1998; Scorgie & Sobsey 2000; Poston & Turnbull 2004); an ability to focus on the present (Featherstone 1980); and a greater appreciation of the small and simple things in life (Abbott & Meredith 1986; Kausaret al. 2003). Studies therefore indicate that, with time and experience, parents of children with disabilities may come to regain a sense of control over their circumstances and a sense of meaning in life by seeing the positive contributions of their children with respect to personal growth and learning whatis important.
and
Our children have taught us the true worth of an individual. Our society tends to value persons based on performance, knowledge, education, the ability to earn income. And these children have taught us that there are so many more inherently important values, which have shaped us as a family.
and
Another thing that makes me feel that I am so much smarter than I used to be is that I have given up trying to fix my son. . . . All I have to do is figure out . . . what he wants and what will make him happy, and try to put a structure around it. . . . He’s fine the way he is, and it was for me to figure that out and, gee, the poor guy while I was figuring that out.
and
And it’s true that if you don’t change the way you think about this child, if you always think that you wanted to have a normal child and you are always comparing your child to a normal child, you’ll never really be accepting and you just don’t get anywhere.
I hope Mr Doherty can one day stop constructing strawmen to fight his battles and can start to appreciate the truths he ignores.
Update
Mr Doherty failed to publish many of the comments I know he received. That’s fine – his blog, his rules. He did however make another post on the subject which I’ll reproduce below:
When I posted yesterday about “Neurodiversity’s” attempts to downplay the existence of severely autistic persons I expected, and received, some heated comments although some were civil and on topic enough to post. But none of the comments that I received acknowledged a central reality that the Neurodiversity movement seems ashamed to admit – that there are many autistic persons in the world whoin fact are severely disabled, who are dangerous to themselves and who require 24/7 care and attendance to ensure their safety. I am still waiting for one of the Neurodiversity advocates to admit these truths – but I am not holding my breath while I wait.
The ugly truth is that many in the Neurodiversity movement seem ashamed to acknowledge the existence of severely autistic persons – like my son.
Here we see yet more Strawmen. Mr Doherty has shifted from specifics – as he was challenged on them and obviously had no response – back to generalities. He now states that the neurodiversity ‘movement’ fail to acknowledge a ‘central reality’ – that there are autistic people who:
a) are severely disabled
b) are dangerous to themselves
c) who require 24/7 care
He claims he is still waiting for one of the neurodiversity advocates to admit these truths, but (put on a lofty tone of voice) ‘I am not holding my breath while I wait’.
Several times in my blogging career I have mentioned my great uncle. He died some years ago. He was born before 1920 and I never met him. He was according to his sister-in-law, my grandmother, severely disabled and whilst he was not considered dangerous he was adjudged to need 24/7 care which he duly received. He was occasionally self-injurious and during those times he was, I suppose, a danger to himself.
As I say, this is not the first time I have mentioned my great uncle. If Mr Doherty spent as much time researching the stated facts regarding those he chooses to misrepresent as he does constructing logically weak arguments then we might do away with all this silliness.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Weird. Somehow I accidentally removed the ability to comment on this post. Anyway – sorry if anyone wanted to comment. Have at it :o)
Honestly.
Does he really think these people exist, the ones who say “do nothing for your child” because you have to ignore his/her needs in order to have joy? Does he think this bunch of people would make headway with pushing this idea?
If he knows that he’s lying and that these “sirens” don’t exist does he really think that he’s going to convince that people like Michelle Dawson are pushing this imaginary position?
In my experience he feels confident to comment on other people’s blogs but is stingy with approving comments on his blog.
I remember when Michelle wrote that the Canadian parents made her sick (I think it was specifically the Canadian ABA/cure parents). I read it soon after she wrote it. The context of the comment was that the parents were defining autism as a disease if Michelle (or I) have a disease then we are sick.
People who tell me I have a disease (when I don’t) are making me “sick”.
I took her comment, “they make me sick” as a play on words, a double entendre, because the lies these parents were spreading about Michelle and about autism, were literally making her feel ill.
I don’t know if Michelle can or wants to pull up the place where she wrote it or what she meant. I think she wrote it on her QT board, and it’s been quite a long time ago. It’s pretty sad that that’s all Mr. Doherty could come up with. and he didn’t even have a citation so people could go check the quote.
As Penn and Teller have said (actually, Teller never says anything) in their show, “Bullshit!”,
“Everybody’s got a gris-gris.”
(a “gris-gris” is an amulet used in voodoo – at least that’s what I got from the show)
By this, they mean that even people who consider themselves to be rational and skeptical often have some area of their lives that is not rational or open to skeptical evaluation.
Prometheus.
For Ms. Clark, the quote is from the Globe and Mail (Feb. 20, ’06):
“They want autism to be a sickness that needs to be cured,” she said. “They say horrible disgusting things so they can get more money for their lobby groups. They make me sick,” Ms. Dawson said.
My gris-gris is the perpetual belief that my adjustable rate mortgage will drop next month, Prometheus.
Happy Birthday, Meg! Sounds like you had a wonderful day with your family.
Steve
After reading the comments at Autism Vox I realize I’ve duplicated an error. “They make me sick” is actually from a previous letter to the Globe and Mail, as Michelle explains: “This statement did not come from anything I said to Mr Picard, but from a letter I had published in the Globe and Mail.” Sorry for the confusion.
Ralph,
Do you know or did you think Michelle’s statement was more of an insult, in the way “they make me sick” is usually used, or as a play on words expressing digust/distress or something similar?
I guess I’m being pedantic, but as a person on the spectrum, if that was a quote of something I said, it would likely have several layers of meaning that I’d be glad to explain if someone asked me to.
The Globe and Mail letter had the title:
“Don’t pathologize us”
The first line:
“I agree with Andrew Kavchak that the way autistics are treated in Canada is sickening. Literally. Activists such as Mr. Kavchak have spread the expedient lie that autistic people are sick, and that without one specific treatment very, very early in life we are doomed.”
The last line:
“Mr. Kavchak should make his case without making us sick.”
The middle made it clear that the “one specific treatment” is “medically necessary” ABA/IBI. Anyone familiar with both the behaviour analytic literature in autism, and with Canadian jurisprudence, will understand exactly how dishonest and expedient it is to portray autistics as sick (ill, diseased, etc) in order to demand ABA/IBI services as “medically necessary” autism treatment.
I’m pretty sure that (edited) letter was published only because of the literal way I used the word “sick”.
My position is that services for autistics–whatever those services are–should be demanded accurately (with respect to the science), ethically and respectfully.
My other position is that autistics deserve the high standards of advocacy, ethics, and science that automatically benefit and protect non-autistics.
My letter to the G & M was consistent with both these positions.
I forgot to add that some time ago, I blogged about self-injury, something I have a lot of experience with. Mr Doherty commented on this post, as you can see.
Sorry, here it is (right under my nose): Don’t pathologize us
Ms. Clark, yes I read “They make me sick” as a possible double entendre. Triple?
Actually, I feel sorry for Mr. Doherty. He’s bought into the ABA line, hook line and sinker. And that has made him a more unhappy parent. It is easy to tell that he loves his son. To be a happier person and a better parent, he needs to carefully read the real science and find out how he has been mislead by the FEAT-types.
Okay, I need some help here. This is a call-out to autistic adults such as Michelle who can help me to understand a point that I am completely missing.
I do not understand the aspersions cast on ABA therapy. I suspect the answer may be in the varying methodologies in which it is applied, but as far as the “ABA” my son received, I just can;t see anything remotely wrong with it.
My son, age 5, has been receiving ABA since 2 months after he was DX’d – starting in March 2004. A typical in-home session consists of:
Therapist arrives. She takes Jason upstairs to the “playroom” where there is a whiteboard on an easel. She writes a numbered schedule on the board, then asks Jason to indicate two spots between activites that he would like free time. If the 2-hour session consists of, say, 4 activities, they then begin on activity #1. This may be, for example, brushing teeth. She will ask him to lead her to the bathroom, go through a step-by-step process. Whatever family members are home, usually my wife and 4-year old son, give him “high-fives” if and when he completes the task. They then cross the item off the list and move on to the next one.
Next may be going in the backyard to run an obstacle course or to slide on the Jungle Gym. During these active sessions, she is teaching Jason to assert himself, take turns, engage in conversation, practice gross motor skills, etc. Then its free time. After that, maybe play a board game with his brother. Or put his shoes on. Or clean up after lunch. Etc.
This goes on for two at-home sessions and one at-office session per week – a total of 6 hours. Sometimes Jason wants to do it, sometimes not. But, just like Tyler, we want to instill in him that sometimes you have to do things that you really don’t want to.
Now, I could be missing a huge point here, but is this the ABA that is considered unhelpful or somehow a burden on the child? I do not see it as anything but helpful – a structured setting in which a trained professional can work with Jason on staged, but natural terms that make sense to him and that he can generalize to other places and times.
If, as I said at the beginning of this comment, I am just using the term ABA to refer to a completely different approach to working with my son, please let me know.
ABA-based autism interventions are supposed to be science-based. The science is published in peer-reviewed journals.
This means that ABA in autism is not above criticism, any more than cognitive science and neuroscience in autism are above criticism.
There are recognized standards of science and ethics. Non-autistics can take for granted that these high standards protect and benefit themselves. My position is that these recognized high standards should also protect and benefit autistics.
ABA-based autism interventions can and should be criticized in three major areas:
a. the science of ABA-based interventions
b. the ethics of ABA-based interventions
c. the way ABA-based interventions have been promoted and demanded (in legal proceedings, as public policy, etc.)
You can find examples of all of the above on my blog and on my website (as needed, complete with sources and references, so the information I provide can be verified).
Examples from my blog are here, here, and here. Examples from my website are here, here, and here.
While I’ve learned a lot since I wrote what I did back then (and the information in some areas is now out of date), this discussion, which looks at the science and ethics of ABA-based interventions from multiple viewpoints, is maybe useful. As is always the case, critical thinking is required. There are links to interesting resources.
Finally, I recommend this peer-reviewed article.
I forgot to add that some of the most strongly worded official (published in scholarly books, e.g.) criticisms of ABA-based interventions come from behaviour analysts.
I would never call ABA a “paternalistic utopian delusion”, but a very famous behaviour analyst has (in a book edited by very famous behaviour analysts). Nor would I ever claim that ABA-based interventions result in “robotic responding”, but a very famous behaviour analyst has stated this criticism in a book.
I’ll blog about this some time in the distant future when I have more time…
I’ll try.
If the trainer is not taking loads of data on what your child is doing, if she doesn’t have a stop watch and clip board and possibly post-it notes stuck to her jean’s thigh, she’s not doing ABA.
http://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/naa_aba.html
Basically, ABA is not the best way to teach autistic kids, it might possibly be the worst way (my opinion)… well … out and out threats and abuse would be worse, but ABA started with abuse (google “Lovaas ABA” my blog comes up as #4 on Google right now) and still uses it sometimes. Just about any structured play time can be called ABA now, from what I understand, but the real ABA folks would probably say your son is not getting ABA (not collecting data) unless you forgot to mention thet data collection part.
You might start at the beginning of Michelle’s blog which is not that old and read through it, after you read the linked to essay above…
this one is good
http://autismcrisis.blogspot.com/2007/02/entirely-different-due-to-aba.html
http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=410#p410
(I think that is the post that Ms. Dawson links to that has a good number of her objections the use of ABA on autistic children, particularly.)
For me, it just makes my skin crawl for several reasons.
I have been reading Dr. Temple Grandin’s book “Animals in Translation,” there are some really interesting points made there about major flaws in behaviorism, even though Dr. Grandin thinks ABA is ok for little autistic kids for a couple of years tops.
To me, there’s the godlike omniscience that the therapist assumes, if the kid is sitting there when you say, “point to blue ball” and the kid doesn’t do it, then he must just be in need of a better reinforcer, get that and he’ll point to the blue ball.
I’m also disgusted by the supernatural powers attributed to the putting of a kids’ behind in a little chair facing the trainer. They’ll torture a child, make him cry for hours, no problem, just to get him or her to sit in a chair so he or she can learn.
Makes me sick. My child was never taught in a tiny chair facing me. Frequently we sat crosslegged on a bed.
I know there are issues around ABA I don’t understand, but I understand enough to know it makes my skin crawl. No offense to people who are using therapies that they call ABA that are different from the majority. There aren’t ANY name branded therapies that are based on real science, as I see it.
I kind of enjoyed this one. You laid into Mr. Doherty and said he threw up Strawman arguments and then Michele Dawson (and others) rant, which proved his point.
For the record, Ms. Dawson, I don’t think you would know ABA if you saw it. Like my sister-in-law, the speech pathologist, you have a mental picture. It is wrong, but you can stick to your definition. It works for you.
What I see is one-on-one, step-by-step teaching using positive reinforcement. If the child enjoys it, they will learn. You can label it autistic or non-autistic learning if you want. It doesn’t matter. Positive reinforcement tends to work with most people.
Whether you like it or not, everyone lives in the “non-autistic” or NT world. Everyone needs to adapt to succeed in life. If someone moves to the U.S. from Bulgaria or Lithuania, my guess is the odds of their success will depend largely on learning English and functioning within society. Choosing not to do so, limits your choices in life. It’s okay to speak your native language, but it helps if you learn to communicate with those around you.
Ms. Clark –
Yes, there is data collection. Periodically, my wife and I sit down to review “the book”. This contains charts that show progress in certain areas, and is designed so that once a skill is “mastered”, there are no further activities on this skill (so Jason does not become bored).
But at the same time, there is no “forcing to sit in a little chair”. We do indeed have a little chair and table, but the preferred method of getting Jason to engage the therapist os to provide him with activities he enjoys doing. And then to fit the “lesson” (such as object classification or pronoun usage) into the activity. And there is an immediate reward for successful completion of tasks. If, during a given activity, Jason shows signs of oppositional behavior (in his case, usually that means he lays down on the floor), there is some gentle urging to bring him back on task. If this does not work, they move on.
There are also frequent breaks to do sensory regulation, where the therapist applies deep tissue pressure or joint compressions. Jason also spends about 30 minutes of the two-hour session leading the activities by selecting what he wants to do most.
Look, I understand the issues with behaviorism, and I also read Temple Grandin’s “Animals in Translation”. The bottom line in this case is that Jason has done very well with ABA. He looks forward to the therapist’s arrival each day. He views the therapist as big buddy he can play with, and it seems the learning takes place without him realizing it. We have seen significant benefits for Jason, including what are termed as “basic life-skills” such as using utensils, putting shoes on, toilet training, washing hands, brushing teeth, etc. There are absolutely no negative reinforcers used, we would not allow that.
What we and the therapist are trying to accomplish is to frame the teaching approach to Jason’s unique needs. Jason seems to view this as a very positive experience, and he has mastered skill after skill using this approach.
Now, having said that, I will check out the links that both you and Michelle have graciously provided before I comment further.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.
You have to appreciate it when a person who rejects all criticisms of ABA-based interventions (and therefore, according to whom, no one should have criticized the Feminine Boy Project–learning is learning, after all) commits a textbook example of mentalizing.
“Why does Michelle criticize ABA-based autism interventions?”
“Because Michelle has a wrong mental picture of ABA-based autism interventions in her mind.”
“How do you know Michelle has a wrong mental picture of ABA-based autism interventions in her mind?”
“Because Michelle criticizes ABA-based autism interventions.”
Where is Interverbal (or Dick Malott) when we need him.
_”I kind of enjoyed this one. You laid into Mr. Doherty and said he threw up Strawman arguments and then Michele Dawson (and others) rant, which proved his point.”_
Could you provide a specific example of that please?
and for those of us (or maybe just me) who missed it – what was his point?
I’ve missed his point too Jypsy. As a matter of fact I’ve struggled to see the point to many of Sixma’s comments but I don’t always have one to make either.
Thank you Michelle and Camille for the links you provided. I did review them, and I believe I understand the salient points. To summarize briefly: You have voiced concern over many (if not all?) aspects ABA methodology, correctly cited the lack of scientific validity to this approach, commented how the push by autism advocates to provide ABA for all autistic individuals has come at the expense of the rights of those same individuals, and dispelled some myths relating to ABA in general, its benefits, its ethics, and its practitioners. Have I got that right? Not to belittle your hard work by so briefly summarizing it – I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly for the reason that the remainder of this question is framed by my understanding of the issue as you see it.
So, my question remains; based on the brief description I have given of the specific form of therapy we provide for my son, do you see any negative consequences for him? If so, specifically what aspects and what would the negative consequences be?
I am asking because I will never have the benefit of viewing this from the autistic perspective. Furthermore, Jason is only 5 and cannot be expected to make his own decisions on what he needs or does not need – any more than his brother can or that I could at that age. Mainstream education is not appropriate for Jason to develop some of these skills. And my wife and I are not “super-parents” who have all the answers and all the time needed to address each of these issues individually without assistance.
And lastly, I want to be sure I am clear that I am not baiting you into an argument here – I really value the perspective and will carefully consider any opinion or additional information you care to provide.
Regards,
Steve
Between one strawman and the other, I won’t take any sides in this argument. Doherty may be exagerating some of the ND’s positions, but I do not agree with the radical anti-ABA stance or with suggestions that autistics will be a-okay when they grow up even if they don’t receive any kind of early intervention whatsoever.
ABA may not the best possible teaching method, but it is one of the best AVAILABLE at the time. It DOES NOT punish or break our children’s spirit. Aversives were used in the PAST, not anymore. ABA therapy has evolved for the better. I’ve never seen more gentle, patient and loving teachers than my son’s ABA tutors. They are constantly retrained and updated on the latest ABA techniques. They get totally excited with my son’s amazing progress, and they make him happy and proud of himself. They have great people games to play with my boy, giving him the sensory input that he needs.
Still, I understand ABA will only take him so far. And there are other types of therapy that will help autistic kids develop their speech and social skills in a more natural and spontaneous way. I’d just like to know what Michelle Dawson and Autism Diva suggest as the best educational method for autistic children in lieu of ABA, amongst the currently available therapies (i.e, Floortime, RDI, Pivotal Response etc). I’m trying a little bit of different techniques at home during my playtime with my son.
suggestions that autistics will be a-okay when they grow up even if they don’t receive any kind of early intervention whatsoever.
ok, just who has suggested this and where?
_”Between one strawman and the other, I won’t take any sides in this argument. Doherty may be exagerating some of the ND’s positions, but I do not agree with the radical anti-ABA stance or with suggestions that autistics will be a-okay when they grow up even if they don’t receive any kind of early intervention whatsoever.”_
Hi :o)
I see Mr Doherty as not exaggerating as out and out misleading. There is no factual basis for any of the claims I highlighted in my post. You should also know that a ‘radical anti-ABA’ stance is not a prerequisite for ND-dom. I’m still not sure where I stand on ABA, but then its much more common in North America than the UK.
You should _definitely_ know that nobody is suggesting that autistics will magically be a-okay without any kind of help/education. This is the most common misconception surrounding ‘ND’. I’m sure you don’t mean to be offensive but please try and imagine how the intimation that I let my daughter stagnate in a corner might be slightly rude.
We don’t do ABA because its simply not available. We do however utilise some things that are seen as behavioural and/or use reinforcement – SaLT for example. We also use a method that is essentially a modified version of Floortime.
Communication and education are vital. No one I know – despite Mr Doherty’s fallacious claims to the contrary – thinks otherwise. Some people simply don’t agree with his assertion that ABA is ‘it’ as far as educational techniques go.
In short, its perfectly fine for Mr Doherty to disagree with what we _do_ say. We just wish that a) he would accord us the same rights and b) he wouldn’t simply make stuff up in order to demonise what he doesn’t agree with. That’s just childish.
Kev, I’m not saying that the ND movement as a whole has a radical anti-ABA stance. In every social movement, there are different individuals of various degrees of moderation/radicalism. However you have to admit that some of the most well-known ND bloggers ARE anti-ABA, and in this particular aspect I disagree with them, even though I tend to side with the ND movement most of the time, especially when they’re fighting against DAN quackery.
I did read posts by these bloggers that suggest that autistic kids are developing and learning in their own special way even if they’re not given any early intervention, and that they may turn out to be just fine as adults. Well, that may be the case many times, and they may have anedoctal prove… But just like parents of NT kids want to give their children the best available education, through the best schools, we parents of autistic kids do the same. Between ABA and nothing, I’ll take ABA anyday not only because it’s the one most available, but because it is GOOD. It is not perfect, but it is good. It’s gentle on my child, it is fun for him, it’s at home (so I can see everything that’s being done) and he’s learnt more with them in 3 months than in years of regular preschool.
I did read posts by these bloggers that suggest that autistic kids are developing and learning in their own special way even if they’re not given any early intervention
Link please?
Jypsy, I will, as soon as I have time to do so.
Thank you.
Jypsy, here’s one example on Autism Diva’s blog (comment by the author, link below):
“If we understand that some autisics develop into quite “funtioning” people, and some have minds that develop into shockingly astute ones, then we will know that much of what people are calling CURE and charging people for, is really normal for some autistic kids.
They “cure” themselves of infancy and toddlerhood and young childhood, they grow, they learn, not because of a drug or vitamin, and sometimes in spite of a drug or vitamin.
There will always be “retarded” autistics, just like there will always be “retarded” low IQ non-autistics.
This is not part of a worldwide plot to destroy humanity. It’s how it is. It’s how it always has been.”
https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11757751&postID=2398684785144696796
And there’s this post by Joel Smith:
Growing Out of “Itâ€
February 9th, 2007
There is a secret that a lot of people don’t want to get out, regarding autism.
What is this secret? It is, as my friend Kathy Grant says, that “we grow up and we grow old.†(I hope I got that right, Kathy!)
People seem genuinely surprised when they meet an adult autistic who can talk, work, drive a car, marry, have children, live on their own, and whatever else. After all, that autistic adult doesn’t look like any of the autistic children they know! The autistic child might not talk, might not be toilet trained (this is a big hangup to allowing people to see similarities between people), and certainly doesn’t drive or marry! It’s also hard for someone to see the child and imagine them as an adult who doesn’t look quite so stereotypically autistic.
Even worse, for those who want to keep this secret, sometimes this happens for no obvious reason. A person might not have received the current therapy (which is sold as being required, lest the child be “lost†to autism forever). They may not have been chelated. They might not have had ABA. They might have eaten a normal diet. In other words, there is no clear obvious answer as to what the difference between them and someone else with the same symptoms at age 5 but who grew up into a person who looks much more stereotypically autistic at age 35.”
Of course they are both right, and I enjoyed reading their posts. Many autistic adults grow up to go to college, marry, get jobs, and I hope this will be the case for my son. But it’s precisely because when your child is 2-5 years old there’s no way to tell how well or how fast he’ll be able to learn communication and social skills, the RIGHT thing to do, by any parent, to help their kids thrive, is to seek therapy that is scientifically proven to work and not to be harmful. And ABA IS one of them.
Hi again,
You specified people who’d said ‘even if they’re not given any early intervention’ but neither of the quotes you provided said that. The two quotes you provided were talking about any _specific_ intervention. In other words, they were saying – like Ms Dawson – that one particular approach is not the be all and end all.
I’m unsure why this particular canard is so popular. Your reply to me states:
_”However you have to admit that some of the most well-known ND bloggers ARE anti-ABA.”_
I don’t see that as having to admit the fact. Its never been in question. Its certainly not any part of what Mr Doherty was discussing. My response to you was based on your statement that:
_”Doherty may be exagerating some of the ND’s positions, but I do not agree with the radical anti-ABA stance”_
which read to me like you are saying that a radical anti-ABA stance is a given part of neurodiversity. But you’ve since clarified with:
_”I’m not saying that the ND movement as a whole has a radical anti-ABA stance.”_
Ms Dawson and Diva have good scientific reason to dispute the efficacy of ABA and others have good scientific reason to support it. There’s no reason these things can’t be debated but as I’ve said, Mr Doherty’s misleading and immature rhetoric which is a fallacious attempt to demonise people he doesn’t agree with is not a good way to go about it.
One of the dangers in ABA (and not by any means unique to it) is insularity. The second one considers a critical reviewer to be “below notice” one loses an avenue of review of methods, logic, and ethics. This also may diminish social validity which is a concept which is claimed to be meaningful in ABA (Wolf, 1978).
What one can do, is review the criticism and scour it for merit. If it does not contain merit, then this should be noted (and why) and then discarded.
If it has it (or is in a gray area) then the point can be reviewed with that other person and sometimes and meaningful dialogue takes place. At the very least (if both parties are respectful) both persons can sometimes still walk away with a slightly clearer understanding of the issues.
Some criticisms of ABA are fraudelent, based on incorrect assumptions, illogical, or even laughable. For these there are even smart-alecky rote responses comparable to what one sees on evolution blogs when a fundementalist emmits the statement “You all beleive in evolution because you just want to live in sin”.
There needs to be critical review from mulitple sources; the accuracy and ethics of a field depend on it.
“And ABA IS one of them.”
Actually, not necessarily.
Recent replications of what Lovaas was doing have yielded ‘disappointing results’… efficacy rates of much less than Lovaas’ promised 47% ‘indistinguishability-from-peers’ figure.
Jonathan’s point on criticisms is well made, but then… Jonathan is good at what he does 🙂
My point about toddlers being cured of toddlerhood is that SOME very autistic (non-speaking, non-eye contact making, spinning, flapping) toddler autistics will grow into what some people would call “quirky” though they are autistic MUCH more than “quirky” …
And that CAN happen WITHOUT any special intervention. *It’s true.* Children who start out looking very impaired, merely by growing up in a somewhat supportive, loving environment (which naturally includes opportunities to learn and be taught by others) sometimes will look like wonderful advertisements for a cure.
I can give you examples of “lost cause” autistics of the 1950’s and 1960’s who grew up to get married and drive cars and have kids and all. (Patty Clark, Mary Margaret Yearwood, Frank Klein… do you want more names?)
They got NO special autism therapies. *None* of them got one hour of special therapies, as far as I know. I can name others who got speech therapy, and OT maybe.
IF their parents had used ABA or Floortime or B12 shots or anything being sold as a cure, their parents would have attributed these *wonderful* advances of development to the ABA or Floortime or B12 shots.
THAT’S my point from the bit that was quoted (sorry for shouting).
If you learn about say Mary Margaret Yearwood’s childhood (I have linked to her telling about it on my blog) she learned all kinds of stuff from her brother. Some people now are paying therapists to teach kids what Mary Margaret got for free from her brother.
Getting help from one’s parents, aunts, uncles, pets, siblings, peers is NOT the same as getting no help at all or getting locked in a closet and ignored.
One of my big peeves is that the natural teaching that parents can do and do do is dismissed as worthless unless they were trained to do it by someone with a certificate or degree.
Which is NOT saying that all therapists need to close up shop and no child ever need therapy. I defy you to find one “ND” person anywhere who says that. If you do let me know I’ll tell him or her that he or she is dead wrong.
I spent a gajillion hours doing “early intervention” with my kids from the time they were *born*. I didn’t need to wait for any stinking red flags, I was intent on raising smart and beloved kids so from the time they were a couple days old I was thinking about how to build wonderful brains inside their heads. Maybe that’s why I don’t get this big deal about “therapy.” Too me a good parent teaches a kid whenever the kid isn’t sleeping or in another room, but it’s all natural, no big incentives are needed, no one ever takes data.
Rewards and punishments are a natural part of parenting. I resent big-time the way stinking behaviorism came along and claimed them. I sort of bribed my NT kid at age 6 to learn to read because the NT kid wasn’t big on sitting with mom like the ASD kid was. The ASD kid learned to read at 3 1/2. The NT kid was way ready to learn to ready by 6 (did not go to kindergarten or pre-school) because of the huge exposure to ready that s/he got from birth. But to get through the nuts and bolts of learning to read, I paid the kid a penny for every simple word s/he could read quickly and confidently (like CAT, BAT, RUN, CUP, DOG, STOP, POTS, CAST) and a nickel for every “sight” word “the, thing, something, there, they” In short time the kid could read tons of words and had made maybe $10 off of mom total before we stopped the bribery. I did it without knowing who Skinner was. Gosh, how shocking is that? I did it without taking an iota of data, all I needed was rolls of nickels and pennies.
The other kid never needed any bribery at all to learn anything I wanted to teach. My kids got some “wow! what a great kid you are! ” but not that much I think. Not like kids in ABA get, from what I’ve seen.
Rewarding people for things that are intrinsically satisfying is deadly and will kill a desire for the child to learn about the thing, like if the child might get a lot of satisfaction from stacking blocks you can kill that satisfaction by rewarding the child for stacking blocks. No kidding. Works for adults, too.
I’m very concerned about the fact that some autistics describe a long time delay (hours) between hearing a thing and it becoming clear what was heard. So Joe hears “I want you to go to the table and pick up the red block and put it in the yellow bucket.” but doesn’t understand it. 3 hours later when he’s alone in a quiet place (home maybe) he says to himself, essentially, “OH, now I get it, she said, pick up the red block and put it in the yellow bucket.”
So tell me, how is the wonder ABA therapist going to mark this on the groovy little graph paper (sorry for the sarcasm, but it makes me angry to think of how many kids were punished for not obeying this kind of command with being slapped in the face or shocked or having various things sprayed in their faces.)
Behaviorism is a crock, to me. That’s my opinion. I am sure Interverbal could convince me of some good uses of real ABA in autism, but right now, everything I know as a parent and everything I know as a person with a fresh bachelors degree in psych from UCD and everything I know as an autistic person tells me that ABA is plain wrong. That is breaking things down into bits, and rewarding and marking data on a chart, etc.
There is no brandname ™ therapy that is based on science. There is some shreds of common sense and some good stuff in floortime, and TEACCH, but not enough that I would pay money to get trained in, either. Kids need speech therapy sometimes, my ASD kid got a little. My ASD kid got some physical therapy and a little OT. I didn’t push to get much because my ASD kid didn’t have big problems with speech and the other stuff either didn’t make sense for my kid or I knew I was doing it at home already.
I just want parents to do the majority of teaching of preschoolers where possible, it will pay off in the relationship between parent and kid. I want “experts” to stop making parents feel worthless and stupid, and I want ‘experts’ to train parents to do the right thing where that’s possible. There has been some good research in this already, showing how beneficial it is.
jypsy described the “early intervention” her son Alex got. It sounded great to me, even though jypsy wasn’t exactly doing it. The state paid for it, maybe she can explain it here. It didn’t have a brand name, it wasn’t based on behaviorism.
I would be willing to bet that jypsy and her husband were doing “early intervention” with all her kids, similar to what I did, though maybe she wasn’t as into teaching them to read, I don’t know.
Michelle says something like autistic kids need to be put in an environment rich in things that they can learn from. That doesn’t necessarily happen without some serious planning (intervention) on the part of parents. Some things autistic kids will actually teach themselves, and some things autistic kids will learn in the wrong “developmental order.” The kids spit on things Piagetian, in other words.
идти, Vygotsky!
Gotta love that zone of proximal development (proximal zone of development)
Steve wrote:
“So, my question remains; based on the brief description I have given of the specific form of therapy we provide for my son, do you see any negative consequences for him? If so, specifically what aspects and what would the negative consequences be?”
I don’t know if there will be negative consequences for your child, or that if there are they will outweigh the positive.
But for ME. There would be gross negative consequences for the family to have a therapist in my space more than about once a week. Many ABA families talk about having squads of ABA therapists in their home like ALL the time. What happened to family life? Portia Iversen talks about how the therapists saw her family having fights (not that it’s unusual that they would have fights, assuming they were squabbles) and the therapists had seen them all in their underwear…
Sorry, but I think that’s wrong. Sounds like you don’t have that situation, to that extent.
I know that there are kids who get ‘real ABA’ who can look back on their childhoods captured in a wall of floor to ceiling bookshelves filled with data, data, and more data. It just makes me sick to think of that. Maybe it’s just me, but that really seems obscene, to me. The kids learn that they are a different kind of human from other humans, they are the kind that needs to have data collected by therapists. I’m sure Dov Shestack knew his siblings weren’t subject to ABA therapy. I think that’s just potentially very damaging to the child.
I don’ t know if your son would do better with an hour in a park without anyone talking to him, compared to an hour in the backyard being run through or led through or whatever a play maze. I just think that the things he might learn from watching relfections on a pond or watching leaves rustle or listening to the sound of pebbles hitting the ground as he drops them are vastly underestimated. Pointing to blue square or sequencing triangles by size, is not necessarily more important than letting him look at college level books, as some autistic kids are wont to do.
I wonder what else your son might be doing that would be more satisfying, happifying, still edifying and doable (like maybe you can’t take him to visit the Hermitage in Russia) rather than sitting in the play room with the therapist, and wouldn’t require a therapist at all.
My work re ABA-based interventions is publicly available and on the record. Anyone wanting to challenge its factual basis is more than welcome, just as anyone wanting to challenge my work in other areas–at a factual level–is more than welcome.
This contains a response to those who, like Mr Doherty, consider any criticism of ABA-based autism interventions to be “anti-ABA prejudices”.
If ABA-based interventions are above criticism, then they are not science, but ideology.
If any criticism of ABA-based interventions is “anti-ABA prejudices”, then you can accuse the late Donald M. Baer (one of the three behaviour analysts who first defined ABA, in 1968) of having “anti-ABA prejudices” because he prominently criticized one of Dr Lovaas’ early ABA/IBI projects.
I’ve probably been a harsher critic of how ABA has been criticized than most behaviour analysts. You can see this here. I provided a link to this article in an earlier comment. And the fact that a lot of the opposition to ABA has been grossly irresponsible does not mean that accurate criticism of ABA-based autism interventions is unnecessary, impossible, or wrong.
Unfortunately, aversives in the form of physical punishment are not irrelevant to current discussions about ABA-based autism interventions. This is because the major and primary study (Lovaas, 1987; McEachin, Smith & Lovaas, 1993) promoted in order to demand that these interventions be mandated for all autistics is, according to its author and its design, dependent for its results on the use of contingent aversives. This is also because major behaviour analysts like Richard Foxx and James Mulick continue to argue that aversives are necessary. And Ivar Lovaas is, with Svein Eikeseth, making a presentation at this year’s ABA conference about how and when to use aversives.
You can pretend all this does not exist (Dr Foxx’s and Dr Mulick’s work in this area is published in books and peer-reviewed journals, and therefore is available, as is the 2007 ABA conference schedule–in which you can also find the JRC), and indeed, aversive procedures are not now part of routine early ABA/IBI.
But I’m concerned about those “other” autistics, who are considered to really “need” aversive procedures (Matson, 2006). And I’m also concerned when an aversive-based study continues to be the major and often only controlled trial of ABA/IBI that is promoted, e.g., in the House of Commons and Senate in Canada, as well as in our jurisprudence, as “proving” that ABA/IBI is “effective” and “medically necessary” autism treatment.
I wrote a series about aversives on my blog. The information in that series can be verified by resorting to reading the primary sources. It is here, here, here, here, and here.
There are multiple descriptive and empirical findings, starting with Kanner (1943), published in peer-reviewed journals, demonstrating that progress is part of the course of development in autism and is characteristic of autism (this has also been found in Rett syndrome, which was once falsely assumed to be neurodegenerative).
The best adult outcomes in autism reported in peer-reviewed papers all belong to autistics who did not receive ABA/IBI as young children.
Above, I provided a link to a peer-reviewed article which looks at the scientific basis and existing science concerning a non-ABA approach to autism. It is a good introduction to this approach, which has (unlike ABA-based autism interventions) produced a successful randomized controlled trial. Here it is again. I’ve also written a bit about this general approach (it is not a brand-name treatment, sorry) on my blog and in the discussion I linked to above.
There is no science to support RDI (setting aside for now its large ethical problems). There is (very) insufficient science to support DRI (Floortime). PRT is ABA. It’s difficult to say exactly which kinds of ABA are now involved in some published controlled or uncontrolled trials of ABA/IBI. If manuals are used, they are mixed with other manuals, and/or with intervention approaches that have no manuals.
There are also parental anecdotes to support every conceivable autism treatment. The behaviour analyst Tristram Smith has written about this (Smith, 1988), including that Bettelheim had glowing testimonials from parents as well as a long waiting list. Dr Smith reiterated this persistent existence of “devoted advocates” of all and any autism treatments at IMFAR 2006.
In correction to Kev, Harold Doherty demands the mandating of ABA-based autism interventions as “medically necessary” autism treatment for all autistic Canadians (including those with the diagnosis of Rett syndrome).
I wrote about productive versus abusive responses to criticism here. And as I’ve written over and over again, compared to how I’ve criticized cognitive science and neuroscience in autism, my criticisms of ABA-based autism interventions have been minor if not downright paltry.
Two other points. I clearly stated my position above, including that I want recognized standards of science and ethics to benefit and protect autistics (as they automatically do for non-autistics). Arguing that these standards are bad for autistics is what autism advocates do, but I have not yet seen any evidence that poor or no standards of science and ethics benefit autistics, or anyone else.
Finally, the ubiquitous, abusive and defamatory (and by this time, tedious and predictable) autism advocacy accusation that those who disagree in any way with autism advocates (who are apparently infallible) are advocating child neglect (which is illegal) is addressed in the discussion I linked to above (twice), as well as here.
I have a bit more to say. I’ll post another message to address a few more things when I have a bit more time.
I *do* love that Zone of Proximal Development… the difference between what a person can do unaided and what they can do with minimal assistance. When ABA-validatable therapies work (to any extent), it is probably because they have pitched their aims within this zone. In Lewinian terms, it might be seen as the proximal region (in one’s Life Space) on a path towards a goal (a distal region; a Zone of Distal Development).
It’s called the Zone of Proximal Development because it refers to the development occurring at a point close in time to the current level of development.
“The kids spit on things Piagetian, in other words.”
This is practically true. However, his stage theory was a good springboard from which the likes of Vygotsky flew off into their own work, armed with some good questions. Piaget, to be fair, was more than just his stage theory: he hated examinations and the idea that you could teach people stuff effectively… there are better ways to assess learning than by examinations, he thought, and there is more likely effective learning when a person is allowed a personal discovery of something (since the person connects not just cognitively, but emotionally as well, to that new knowledge). For Vygotsky and the neo-Vygotskyans, it became clear that guided discovery was somewhat more effective.
Good Morning,
Steve, I’m sorry but I have to agree with Kev, your examples did not say what you said they would.
Hi Kevin
I’d like to wish Megan a very happy birthday!
To Friend in California and Another Autism Mom, I really don’t think that autistic children need loads of therapy, but they all need to be educated and parented and raised in a loving and supportive environment. My 6 yo son has no therapy now, though he had a few years of SALT and used to use PECs. He has never had any ABA, and I don’t need RDI or Floortime either. I have read books about those last 2, and picked up a few ideas that we could easily adopt into family life. We do not feel we need some expert telling us how to raise our son, though I feel perfectly happy to ask for advice from friends and family, and even on my blog when I feel a bit lost.
I wrote about how Duncan learns here and here.
To Another Autistic Mom,
You and I read the same blogs with the same statements. Dawson and Diva are two prime examples.
Like you, I have witnesses ABA first hand. I do NOT recognize what they are writing about. It was the same thing with my sister-in-law, the speech pathologist. They actually use many of the same tools. The big difference is constant positive reinforcement and the ability to teach at the right level of understanding. Speech therapy has been worthless.
For those interested in whether or not Lovaas was replicated, here it is . . .
Click to access ReplicatingLovaas1999.pdf
Thank you Sharon :o)
666sigma – any sign of that example yet?
Providing an unpublished paper as a “replication” of Lovaas (1987) shows off the kind of standards we’ve come to expect from autism advocates.
I’ve written (in links I’ve already provided at least once here) about Sallows and Graupner (2005), the paper that was eventually published, and which differs in important ways from the unpublished, non-peer-reviewed version.
I’m always happy to correct what I’ve written about the existing science of ABA. All I need is some credible evidence that what I’ve written is inaccurate. E.g., it sure would have been good if someone had pointed out my error re the Rett’s girls in TMoB, but I had to find that one myself.
This comments is from an assessment done by Alex’s SLP in grade 1 :
“With the consistent and enthusiastic support of Alex’s teacher assistant and parents, Alex entered Grade 1 at Gulf Shore in September 1993, with the ability to use all of the following means of communication — sign language, gestures, Canon Communicator, picture communication symbols, infrequent vocalizations and an immerging ability to print words”
She is only addressing communication as this is a speech language pathology report. “consistent and enthusiastic support of Alex’s teacher assistant and parents” did not include ABA, RDI or Floortime or any other named therapy. “Alex’s teacher assistant” is a woman who entered his life when he was 3, working 1-1 with him a couple of mornings a week in preschool, went on to half day kindergarten with him and worked with him until Grade 3. Alex was 5 years 9months old when he “entered grade 1” with the above noted communication skills. Alex’s school work was grade level and above from grade 1 on through to his high school graduation with honours.
At least part of the problem with discussing ABA is the lack of a common definition. While there is somewhat of a consensus view of what ABA “should be”, there are an awful lot of people out in the community who claim to practice ABA but don’t. Not really.
Apart from this, I also have a problem with some of the fundamental principles of ABA, in that I don’t feel that they take into account the very different ways in which autistic people (another very diffuse term begging for a better definition) perceive their environments. Some of the “tasks” and “goals” of ABA appear to be aimed at making the autistic person “look normal”, e.g. look at people’s faces, stop flapping, sit quietly, don’t flinch or shy away from certain noises, don’t fixate on objects or noises, etc.
Without a way of understanding how each person with autism experiences these stimuli (i.e. faces, noises, lights, objects…), we have no way of knowing whether we are asking them to do something that is easily within their capability or something that causes them anxiety, discomfort or even pain.
I’m sure that there are people out there doing ABA who consider this, but I haven’t met them yet. All of the self-described “ABA therapists” I’ve spoken to (and I’ve spoken to a fair number) are completely at a loss when I propose that their “clients” may be experiencing the world very differently, to the point of experiencing pain from what we would consider “non-noxious” stimuli.
I would be interesting in hearing from autistic people who have received ABA therapy to see what their experiences were in the context of what I have written above.
Prometheus
The responses I received to my question are a clear indication to me that I did not do a very good job phrasing the question to begin with.
Michelle – thank you for your thorough and thoughtful reply, but I am really not asking about the “macro” view of ABA – I am specifically asking if, based on the description (albeit brief) of the program that my son is experiencing, you see any ethical transgressions or potential for negative outcome. In other words, are we unwittingly harming our child in any way?
And, to be clear, I am not challenging your position, I am simpy asking for your help in applying your expertise in this area to my son’s particualr situation.
Ms. Clark, your response is much closer to what I was asking for, and I thank you also.
However, I would like to comment on several of your statements:
“There would be gross negative consequences for the family to have a therapist in my space more than about once a week. Many ABA families talk about having squads of ABA therapists in their home like ALL the time.”
We are not one of those families. Jason’s schedule looks like this: 2 sessions of 2 hours per week at our house. One session of 2 hours per week at an office in a program called “Friends Club”, wherein 3-8 children on the spectrum get together to play and have fun. Yes, there are therapists in attendance, but they don’t do much more than administer the “Duck, Duck, Goose” game – same as would happen in the same situation with NT kids. He also receives speech therapy 2 x 30 minutes per week atschool, and we have one privately-paid 45-minute session per week in addition to that. Then, on Friday afternoon, we take him down to REINS – self-described as the happiest place on Earth (and I agree), where children and adults with any number of diseases, developmental disabilities, brain injuries, or other conditions ride horses in 45 minute sessions. Last week, Jason guided his horse “Betsy” around the riding pen for the first time by himself -I don’t think I have ever seen him so proud of himself. That’s it – it totals about 8.5 hours per week. No armies of therapists, no excessive burdens placed on him.
“I know that there are kids who get ‘real ABA’ who can look back on their childhoods captured in a wall of floor to ceiling bookshelves filled with data, data, and more data. It just makes me sick to think of that. Maybe it’s just me, but that really seems obscene, to me. The kids learn that they are a different kind of human from other humans, they are the kind that needs to have data collected by therapists.”
I see your point to an extent. But Jason never sees the book. All data recording is done at the end of any given session. Plus, I don’t think it is fair to make the statement that data-collection inevitably leads to kids thinking they are a “diffferent kind of human”. This is a fairly broad assumption, and not necessarily the case at all.
“I don’ t know if your son would do better with an hour in a park without anyone talking to him, compared to an hour in the backyard being run through or led through or whatever a play maze.”
He gets his alone time – plenty of it. We have an orchard of about 1/2 acre in our back yard with fruit trees and views extending for about 40 miles. He loves to spend time in the orchard, though we do not let him do it alone as he is only 5 and could easily scale the split-rail fence for the purpose of “exploring”. He also has his own bedroom, and house rules are that this is his “haven”. I agree with you completely, and we make certain that he gets whatever alone-time he wants or needs.
“I wonder what else your son might be doing that would be more satisfying, happifying, still edifying and doable (like maybe you can’t take him to visit the Hermitage in Russia) rather than sitting in the play room with the therapist, and wouldn’t require a therapist at all.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but this statement assumes that there is something inherently less-good for a 5 year old boy to spend time in a playroom with someone he clearly enjoys spending time with than there is in any number of other things he could be doing. I disagree. Jason enjoys a borad range of activities, or lack of activities, or places, or people, and he certainly shows every indication that this is a preferred way for him to spend his time.
Jason’s therapists (there have been three) develop very positive relationships with him and our family. At our small-town Christmas Parade this year, our current therapist asked if she could come with us. My kids were both asked to be in the wedding ceremony of another therapist. She was the bride, and no one laughed louder than she when Jason climbed on the table during dinner and took a bite out of the not-yet cut wedding cake. Jason also carried the broom down the aisle and laid it in front of her for her to jump over at the end of the ceremony, according to her family tradition, and he very clearly enjoyed being included in that (although he was nervous as hell). He still refers back to that day. All three therapists generally come for his birthday. So you see, our experience with Behavioral Therapy has been a good one. Even still, when I repeatedly hear comments from people whose opinions I respect and admire, such as Camille or Michelle, it causes me to stop and think – maybe there is something to this that I am overlooking. This is what prompted me to ask the question. So far, I have not heard anything mentioned that would discourage me from continuing on with what we are doing, which is the result I was hoping for.
Oh, and Jypsy, that was not my comment you are referring to.
Steve in California,
““*I wonder what else your son might be doing* that would be more satisfying, happifying, still edifying and doable (like maybe you can’t take him to visit the Hermitage in Russia) rather than sitting in the play room with the therapist, and wouldn’t require a therapist at all.â€
Correct me if I am wrong, but this statement assumes that there is something inherently less-good for a 5 year old boy to spend time in a playroom with someone he clearly enjoys spending time with than there is in any number of other things he could be doing. ”
What your son experiences may be right next to perfect for him and for your family. I can not see what he experiences, so I’m even more at a disadvantage than if I could see it. If I could see it I might misjudge the situation, thinking he’s happy when he’s not and thinking he’s not happy when he is.
I just gave you some things to think about which you mostly took as intended, and graciously, but you wrote that I assumed there is iherently something wrong with a boy being in a room in his home with a good therapist . I didn’t even hint that it was inherently wrong, I wrote that I wondered if there was something better. There might not be something better that is doable. Surely in a perfect world there would be something better, like he could have his own horse in the backyard and a dog and a chemistry set and a way to experience the way light interacts with objects in some super artsy-sciency way.
Part of my point is that people look at a kid spinning a metal lid and are horrified, but autistics know what is being learned and how the kid is being soothed by it at the same time.
If your son was learning that way, which might not be practical… but if he was learning that way he wouldn’t need breaks, cajoling and joint compressions, he’d be blissed out and learning things at the same time.
Another fact, whatever a person learns when under too much stress can not be retained. Like if someone tried to teach you something new while pointing a gun at you, you probably couldn’t retain it well. But autistic kids tend toward being in a fear state when they are with others, not always, but many times, and that’s one point from “Animals in Translation.” That I think is important. Not that your son is in a panic because the therapist wants him to do something, but some autistic kids are in a panic, even if it doesn’t always show, when the therapist tries to teach them something.
This is another reason to have the child learn at home with a parent, or away from home with a parent, and not with strangers. Maybe this doesn’t apply in your situation Steve because the therapists are so friendly. Some therapists torture their students, hence the need to keep a video camera on them when the parents aren’t watching… no really, this has happened.
I guess you have to be autistic to get the self teaching thing … maybe. No insult intended, and none taken by your questions, comments.
Sorry Steve… I’m having one of those days…
Camille,
You are describing “perfect world” conditions, which in all honesty is pretty much what I asked of you. I then made the mistake of losing sight of this, resulting in my misunderstanding your comment. Thanks for the clarification.
And, by the way, he does have a dog – a big, floppy, 108# black lab with a slobber problem. Only in the last 8-9 months has Jason elevated Chance (the dog) from “object” status to “person” status (my term, not scientifically validated 🙂 I have some great pics of him as a toddler literally sitting on chance while perusing books or using him as a TV pillow. I kept thinking during these times that Jason must be thinking to himself “This is the best pillow in the world – it actually follows me to wherever I want to use it”.
And one last anecdote, largely to illustrate the poont that we do not prostrate ourselves before the altar of behaviorism:
6 months ago, the director of the agency we work with for therapy, when asked by me to comment on Jason’s obsession with lining things up, recommended that we begin to limit the activity by engaging Jason in other things he would like to do. In toher words, she felt this was a behavior to be eliminated. I openly disagreed, and we went on about our business.
A month later, I briefly met Dr. Grandin at a conference. I posed the same basic question to her – something along the lines of “Is this an indicator of stress that, if so, could help us to identify unknown (to us) sources of said stress?”
Her response was that it doesn’t matter what causes it, but that when he is doing it (he lines up 60-80 trains in varying patterns in his room, so this is an activity he spends a lot of time on) get down next to him and ask him why he is doing it. If he wants to converse, then segue the conversation into asking about other things he likes. Then ask him about school. In other words, she was recommending that we let our interest in his interest be a catalyst for shared experience. I thought this was really good advice, and we do it regularly now. In actuality, we already were, but it was nice to hear it “framed” that way.
So anyway, thanks again, as I do feel I have a better understand of the whole picture now.
Hi Friend in California,
So far as I can tell, you’re saying your son gets 4hrs/wk of ABA-based intervention (2 sessions of 2 hrs)? And he gets an hour and 45 minutes of speech therapy (which may or may not involve behaviour analytic stuff–let’s say in this case it is behaviour analytic). And the rest is play, and horses (I loved horses as a kid and still do; where would I be without them?). That’s at the most less than six hrs/wk of ABA, but even if the whole time (~8.5hrs/wk) is really ABA-based, this is extremely non-intensive.
In the science, e.g., programs of 12hrs/wk would be considered non-intensive. This (take the whole 8.5hrs/wk) is an intensity of ABA-based intervention which is considered inadequate and ineffective by behaviour analysts. Many behaviour analysts see anything less than 20hrs/wk as not having any possibility of being effective. Control Group 1 in Lovaas (1987) received 10hrs/wk or less of one-to-one ABA-based intervention.
The program/intervention your son is in might also fall under the label of “eclectic” treatment (ABA-based intervention combined with other approaches), which a lot of behaviour analysts and “autism advocates” (strongly) disapprove of. Or it might fall under the label of “generic” treatment (as in Gabriels et al., 2001).
Apart from that, the information you give isn’t specific enough for me to comment on an individual program, and this program is so non-intensive that what happens outside the program is going to have a major effect. Also, I know of no Canadian “autism advocate” who is now asking or has ever asked for less than 10hrs/wk of ABA. Generally, the demand has been for ~40hrs/wk. I wonder how different the political and legal landscape in Canada would look now if the parents here were demanding less than 10hrs/wk of ABA.
Sorry, but everything else I’d have to say re possible unintended and/or adverse effects of ABA-based interventions would be more at that “macro” level you’re not too interested in or not finding helpful. You can see some of that in the science forum discussion I’ve linked to a few times already, some of which might be pertinent to your concerns (if you can wade through the more “macro” stuff; there’s definitely a few words about lining things up in there…).
Thanks, Michelle. It is not that I am not interested in the macro view of ABA as relates to efficacy, ethics, etc. Its just that your writings have brought me very much up to speed on those issues and I therefore do not feel the need to ask specific questions. Thanks for that.
My inquiry was more based on the concept that, although I (still) view my son’s program as harmless, is there reason to question my position on that? I am always trying to keep an open mind, especially to the opinions of those who are more well-versed a given topic than I am.
Steve