Read on Twitter
Yesterday, I mentioned a new study was out on early interventions, including ABA, for autistic people.
Huge study from impressive team. (Systematic Review).
https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta/hta24350#/s6 is the link.
It found only limited evidence of anything useful happening. One fascinating thing/
Huge study from impressive team. (Systematic Review).
https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta/hta24350#/s6 is the link.
It found only limited evidence of anything useful happening. One fascinating thing/
..was that only one of the research projects they found had bothered to look at the longer term result. Magiati & team, 2011. 7 yrs.
But, look at the problems here: Two year olds being given 30 hrs/wk of intensive training, for example. What kind of childhood is that?
And/
But, look at the problems here: Two year olds being given 30 hrs/wk of intensive training, for example. What kind of childhood is that?
And/
...utterly random stuff the tiny children were given. Might have been anything, by anyone, supervised by goodness knows who.
No control group, so there's nothing to compare it to.
39 out of 44 were male, so data on long-term effects on girls - 5 girls. That's all we have. 5. /
No control group, so there's nothing to compare it to.
39 out of 44 were male, so data on long-term effects on girls - 5 girls. That's all we have. 5. /
This, my friends, seems to be the only study this Systematic Review could find that looked at longer term outcomes, and it tells us just about nothing.
Remember all the times you've been told all this behaviourist stuff is 'evidence based'.
Isn't it strange.
Remember all the times you've been told all this behaviourist stuff is 'evidence based'.
Isn't it strange.
The alleged 'evidence base' for whether intensive stuff done to female toddlers makes a difference over time, just 5 girls? 5 having random stuff done by random people?
I am so boggled by this.
Does no-one check before paying for it?
I am so boggled by this.
Does no-one check before paying for it?
Worse still, 36 children in the final group, so that's hardly life's biggest sample.
All children are expected to make progress over 7 yrs. So what are we testing this against?
Are we testing for harms done as well? Nope.
And, 2011 was the end point. Not done on modern cohorts
All children are expected to make progress over 7 yrs. So what are we testing this against?
Are we testing for harms done as well? Nope.
And, 2011 was the end point. Not done on modern cohorts
And this is the awful, awful situation, as shown in that NIHR report.
Not even one study bothered to collect proper data on possible harm.
None of them.
Ethically bankrupt is not a term I want to use lightly, but I can't think of a better phrase right now.
Not even one study bothered to collect proper data on possible harm.
None of them.
Ethically bankrupt is not a term I want to use lightly, but I can't think of a better phrase right now.
Whilst talking about ethically bankrupt, we might want to remind ourselves of how much expert Teacher Training goes into these ABA enthusiasts who sit in the child's house, doing this stuff to them for 20-30 hrs a week.
Real teachers may want to commence outrage, right now.
Real teachers may want to commence outrage, right now.
