An empirically defensible approach for incorporating the opinions of non-ABA disciplines

[Guest guest]

Dear concerned parent (and anyone else contending with

an OT, PT, or SLP):

Is this another case of the OT claiming to address

" the unseeable diagnositc condition? " Is your OT

offering a relatively colorful (perhaps

too-good-to-be-true) solution to addresss some

hypothesized, endogenous, covert dysfunction that is

presumably at the root of some behavioral or

performance issue?

If so, then I would suggest that the treeatment and

it's explantion are nothing more than an explanatory

fiction (an argument based on circular reasoning where

cause and effect cannot be observed independently),

and your OT has crossed the line into what some BA's

(wise crackers like me) refer to as the cosmic.

Here is my essential guideline when working with OT's,

PT's, and SLP's.

" Your goals, my methods. "

Behavior analysis has demonstrated systematically and

repeatedly how to teach or modify behavior

effectively. OT and other disciplines have not. OT

and other non-ABA disciplines do very well when they

focus on what they have been trained to do, to

implement procedures taken from or based on what their

respective research literature supports. For OT it's

stuff like holding and using a pencil, riding a bike,

buttoning a shirt, tying a shoe, or facilitating

self-feeding through the design and manufacture of

special plates, spoons, and cups. To my knowledge

these are the good and reasonable goals that they are

trained to help learners to attain. OT's can't fix or

minimize the effects of autism. OT's can't treat

sensory integration disorder because the dx is a

fiction of their faulty circular reasoning--an

explanatory fiction. At the very least, there is no

sound evidence that the diagnosis is valid.

The person I want formulating and supervising the

behavior plan for any student of mine will understand

these professional strictures and limitations.

They'll know what they can and can't do. They'll

respect and incorporate the valid knowledge of others

and defend what they know is empirically defensible

(and right). Of course they'll have credible training

and experience in ABA. They might have a BA, MA, or

Ph.D., although the degree isn't central. More

education tends to be a good thing, although it

doesn't guarantee satisfactory performance. If the

person has other skills (non-ABA), that can be okay

(so long as they don't contradict or interfere with

good ABA practice).

In the end, it's simple. There are no miracle cures

or overnight sensations. There are no magic wands or

" Easy " buttons for treating the essential issues of

austism. There are lots of people making los of money

off of so many flawed explanations.

Your team is wise to be skeptical. Neither the laws

of physics nor the laws of behavior have ever changed

just because a human has suggested that they have or

has chosen to ignore them.

I suggest that you proceed with all due

caution--empirically, analytically, functionally,

technically, behaviorally.

This is just my view of the world.

Hampel Ph.D., BCBA

PS--For more on explantory fictions and bogus

reasoning generally, find a copy of Dr. Jack

's, " Concept and Principles. "

______________________________________________________

for Good

Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

http://store./redcross-donate3/