Please answer the question:

Research two controversial or non-research-based ways to help build communication skills among nonverbal students. Explain each method and why it is controversial and/or not evidence based.

Respond to student discussion. Do NOT mixed the student discussion with the question.

(JENN) To be considered evidence-based, treatment must be thoroughly investigated in multiple well-designed scientific studies and show measurable, sustained improvements in targeted areas. Teachers should be aware of non-evidence-based treatments (Autism Science Foundation, 2019).

Two non-evidence-based and controversial interventions include; sensory-motor therapies and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).

Sensory-motor therapies include auditory integration therapy, sensory integration therapy, facilitated communication, vision therapy, and rapid prompting method. There is little research to support whether this works for individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD).

Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) includes diets, vitamin therapy, non-vaccination, secretin, and chelation. These methods can be considered risky and without evidence to show that the risk is worth it (Smith, n. d.).

Chelation: Chelation therapy involves administering chemicals designed to bind to heavy metals and eliminate them from the body. Chelating agents have a legitimate use in the treatment of poisoning from lead, mercury and other metals. There is no evidence that supports chelation as a safe treatment alternative because autism is not caused by metal poisoning. In 2005, a child with autism died from chelation therapy, when the chelating agent bonded with calcium in his body and caused his heart to stop. No paper published in the peer-reviewed literature has reported abnormal levels of mercury in individuals with an autism spectrum disorder. Moreover, symptoms of mercury poisoning are unlike symptoms of autism, making chelation an impractical way to improve symptoms (Smith, n. d.).

Vitamin Supplements: It is important to maintain a healthy and balanced diet. To achieve this goal, healthcare providers may recommend nutritional supplements to people with and without autism. Use of supplements can be problematic however when they are misused in an attempt to cure an individual of autism. There is no scientific evidence suggesting that vitamin supplements can cure autism. Using supplements without consulting a healthcare provider can be dangerous. Some supplements (e.g., vitamin A) can be toxic when taken in high doses for sustained periods; others may not contain what they claim (Smith, n. d.).

Jennifer

Autism Science Foundation (2019). Beware of Non-Evidence-Based

Treatments. Retrieved from:

https://autismsciencefoundation.org/what-is-autism/beware-of-

non-evidence-based-treatments/

Smith, T. (n.d.). Initiative for Dissemination of Evidence-based

Treatments for Childhood and Adolescent Mental Health Problems.

The Society for Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology (SCCAP).

Retrieved from:

https://effectivechildtherapy.fiu.edu/files/pdf/division53_

smith_keynote.pdf

(LR) Non-verbal communication refers to the communication that takes place without the use of linguistic content. It tends to measure our verbal responses, especially when the two are contradictory, to either reinforce or contradict our verbal responses. (Junaid, 20180) Therefore, I think most professional’s or experts argue about what each might think to be an effective technique for teaching communication skills are. Further, if a communication method used does not have great successes it is considered non-research that is mainly based on one’s opinion preferably from what most individuals have observed. I also think much debate will continue due to each case study meeting the nonverbal communication needs. By the same token, there are some intervention that are not proven safe or effective as others for most ASD students. At any rate, the two non-research-based methods I chosen are facilitated communication and sign language. Surprisingly, despite decades of evidence that FC is ineffective and has caused great harm to families. The founders of FC, both in Australia and in the USA, have made a number of claims regarding the efficacy of FC and reasons they believe it cannot be evaluated using traditional scientific methods. (Ganz, 2014) Furthermore, there have been argument about the use of sign is because the motor skills required for manual signs may be less complex or difficult than those required for speaking. (Ganz, 2014) Although, I have found some communication methods might work for some and might not work as well for others. Therefore, what might have been anyone’s barriers or successes you might share about the two listed in my post either through research or your personal experience?

References

Ganz, J. B. (2014). Aided augmentative communication for individuals with autism spectrum disorders. New York, NY: Springer Publishing.

Junaid, A., Shaban, M., & Khan, N.-U.-S. (2018). Perceptions of Patients on Doctors’ and Nurses’ Non-Verbal Communication in Lahore, Pakistan: A Phenomenological Study. Pakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal, 68(6), 1731–1736.

(PAT.S)The use of two non-research-based ways to help build communication skills are accepted by some because of case studies and hypothesizing as opposed to clear evidence.

FC method uses pictures and typing for individuals to communicate their thoughts. The following are the steps to FC (Ganz, 2014):

1.A facilitator provides physical and emotional support to the individual through prompts. The individual physically with slight nudges to the arm or lifts the hand for support to help the client point to a word. Challenging behaviors continue when claims are made in favor of the individual’s language ability to communicate wants and needs and comprehend consequences of such behaviors. The individual only performs with the same facilitator and is unable to show language ability with other facilitators. There is no clear explanation.

1. The facilitator provides instruction through asking questions and physically prompting the correct answer.
2. The facilitator redirects the individual to focus on the task. Challenging behaviors and physical and verbal prompts are ignored.
3. The facilitator avoids any testing of the individual’s abilities.
4. The facilitator begins “set work” (tasks that have predictable answers that lead to open ended questions.
5. Physical support is faded but may take several years.

Despite the claims of the founders of Facilitated Communication (FC), claims are based on case studies and not evidence based research. There is no convincing evidence for the efficacy of FC. Proponents hypothesize the individuals thought to have language deficits are incorrect and anxiety impedes the individual’s ability to communicate. Another suggestion is that the individual is observing when not participating in social and communication skills. The individual’s brain power is used in greater ways. Supporters of FC also claim the individual was learning while watching siblings complete homework, leafing through a book or watching educational television. (Ganz, 2014). Facilitators of FC give reasons that lack objectivity.

Sign language has been used to aid communication for individuals with ASD. It has not shown significant improvements in communication over AAC. In certain conditions the sign language did better then AAC and in conditions for AAC sign language was outperformed by individuals using AAC. Sign language has improved receptive speech or aided in auditory sounds as prompts but has not shown significant evidence to be superior to AAC. Manual dexterity is limited with individuals with ASD and can present problems. The efficacy of sign language or AAC will be determined on an individual basis. The verbal skills and preference of the individual with ASD. Research has verified the benefit of sign language with those with DD but significant research has not been done to be conclusive on the benefit of sign language for those with ASD (Ganz, 2014)

Ganz, J. B. (2014). Aided augmentative communication for individuals with autism spectrum

disorders. New York, NY: Springer Publishing.

Read “Nonmedical Interventions for Children with ASD: Recommended Guidelines and Further Research Needs,” by Maglione, Gans, Das, Timbie, and Kasari, from the American Academy of Pediatrics (2012).

Read Chapter 8. Sorry. I had to copy and paste from a ebook.

Read “Facilitated Communication Persists Despite Scientific Criticism,” by Novella, located on the Neurologica Blog website.

URL:

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/facilitated-communication-persists-despite-scientific-criticism/

URL:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/Supplement_2/S169.full

Read “What are Evidence-based Practices?” located on The National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders website.

URL:

http://autismpdc.fpg.unc.edu/evidence-based-practices