Research Article

[Guest guest]

Ebanks, M.E., Fisher, W.W., (2003). Altering the timing of academic

prompts to treat destructive behavior maintained by escape. Journal of

Applied Behavior Analysis, 36(3), 355-359.

Following a functional analysis showing that destructive behavior was

reinforced by escape, we altered the aversiveness of task demands by

interspersing easy and difficult tasks and by presenting a corrective

prompt as an antecedent event the next time a previously failed item was

presented: this procedure was compared with one in which the corrective

prompt was provided as an immediate consequence. Results of a reversal

design showed that the antecedent prompt acted as an establishing

operation and reduced destructive behavior to zero.

<http://www.autismbehaviorconsult.com/> Everyone Can

<http://www.autismbehaviorconsut.com/> Learn

e Quinby

Behavior Consultant 6165 Mountain Laurel Court

<http://maps./py/maps.py?Pyt=Tmap & addr=6165+Mountain+Laurel+Cou

rt & csz=Pipersville%2C+PA+18947 & country=us>

Pipersville, PA 18947

e@...

www.autismbehaviorconsult.com <http://www.autismbehaviorconsult.com/>

tel:

fax: 215-766-3832

215-766-3832

<http://www.plaxo.com/signature> Signature powered by Plaxo

<http://www.plaxo.com/signature> Want a signature like this?

<https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=8589960430 & v0=50595 & k0=1679972177> Add

me to your address book...

[Guest guest]

DAta is quoted from a study-not a trial but an observational study. Not even from anyone in Milwaukee.

One needs to remember the Salt Institute which is devoted to selling salt-not to saving lives is a freq funder of these sorts of analyses. So see who funded the study.

CE Grim, MD

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/1/05 10:55:21 PM, dave@... writes:

But as a longtime writer and editor, I am embarrassed and mortified by 

recent trends toward "dumbing down," for just these reasons.

Dave

All one has to do is to watch the local "health news" TV segment each evening. The crap they talk about is unbelieveable. No wonder the public is so health knowledge deficient.

CE Grim, MD

[Guest guest]

, I think you were struck true. I too, am similarly stricken

because I write stuff like this for a living.

This is good journalism because it at least presents one critical

argument that sicker people use reduced salt diets, and would naturally

have higher mortality rates. It is not good scientific jourmalism in

that it does not present other critical thought about the study. What

variables were correlated with mortality? Just low salt diets? How

low? How were the participants screened and defined prior to starting?

What were these parameters? This goes to reliability and validity;

and if you have to go read the original study to find out, the article

is too condensed, or " dumbed down " because of these omissions. Many

people have neither the time or ability to evaluate professional

academic research.

It is also not good general journalism--whatever reason this

writer/editor used to justify this omission--because with so little

information about research method, the " other side of the argument "

should have been presented high up, in at least the so-called " nut

graph, " or summary of what is to follow. It is not, which is thought

in journalism to likely give speedy readers the impression that this

finding does change the entire medical attitude toward dietary sodium,

because critical thought does not occur until later. The posited

" speedy reader " might well only read the first few paragraphs, or if

she/he got to them at all, think them unimportant. So, if they use

this most common journalistic reason for leaving out important facts,

they are defeating their own ethical code by putting criticism at the

bottom.

Finally, the article is by a writer from " Heath Day Reporter, " a

publication about which readers know nothing, nor if the article is

published in full.

So, yes, I'd agree it is not a responsible hospital publishing move.

Diet is too important a subject to be tossed off like a tabloid. I was

just invited to apply for a job of communications director for our

local hospital, and this would be one of the things I could not

countenance--incomplete medical reporting--much less be well enough to

take the job if offered. As a PA patient, I am still struggling to

undo years of incorrect diagnosis and treatment of my hypertension.

But as a longtime writer and editor, I am embarrassed and mortified by

recent trends toward " dumbing down, " for just these reasons.

Dave

On May 1, 2005, at 3:01 PM, Malotky wrote:

> An article on the homepage of my local hospital (Dr. Grim's

> neighboring community) claims low salt diets are dangerous... 

> http://www.waukeshamemorial.org/cgi-bin/healthDay.pl?

> article & articleID=525391  Not conclusive, of course... strikes me as a

> little irresponsible for a hospital to publish such statements on

> their web site.

[Guest guest]

Yes, my main concern was also with the speedy readers, of which I am one... the only reason I read the whole article was because I couldn't believe what I was reading at the beginning. But, had I not been so personally connected to the subject, I probably would've just skimmed a few paragraphs and moved on.

M.

Re: research article

, I think you were struck true. I too, am similarly stricken because I write stuff like this for a living.This is good journalism because it at least presents one critical argument that sicker people use reduced salt diets, and would naturally have higher mortality rates. It is not good scientific jourmalism in that it does not present other critical thought about the study. What variables were correlated with mortality? Just low salt diets? How low? How were the participants screened and defined prior to starting? What were these parameters? This goes to reliability and validity; and if you have to go read the original study to find out, the article is too condensed, or "dumbed down" because of these omissions. Many people have neither the time or ability to evaluate professional academic research.It is also not good general journalism--whatever reason this writer/editor used to justify this omission--because with so little information about research method, the "other side of the argument" should have been presented high up, in at least the so-called "nut graph," or summary of what is to follow. It is not, which is thought in journalism to likely give speedy readers the impression that this finding does change the entire medical attitude toward dietary sodium, because critical thought does not occur until later. The posited "speedy reader" might well only read the first few paragraphs, or if she/he got to them at all, think them unimportant. So, if they use this most common journalistic reason for leaving out important facts, they are defeating their own ethical code by putting criticism at the bottom.Finally, the article is by a writer from "Heath Day Reporter," a publication about which readers know nothing, nor if the article is published in full.So, yes, I'd agree it is not a responsible hospital publishing move. Diet is too important a subject to be tossed off like a tabloid. I was just invited to apply for a job of communications director for our local hospital, and this would be one of the things I could not countenance--incomplete medical reporting--much less be well enough to take the job if offered. As a PA patient, I am still struggling to undo years of incorrect diagnosis and treatment of my hypertension.But as a longtime writer and editor, I am embarrassed and mortified by recent trends toward "dumbing down," for just these reasons.DaveOn May 1, 2005, at 3:01 PM, Malotky wrote:

An article on the homepage of my local hospital (Dr. Grim's neighboring community) claims low salt diets are dangerous... http://www.waukeshamemorial.org/cgi-bin/healthDay.pl?article & articleID=525391 Not conclusive, of course... strikes me as a little irresponsible for a hospital to publish such statements on their web site.