In Topic 6 DQ1 You Identified Two Controversial Or Non-Resea ✓ Solved

In Topic 6 Dq1 You Identified Two Controversial Or Non Research Based

In Topic 6, DQ1 you identified two controversial or non-research-based methods to help build communication skills among nonverbal students. Identify two additional controversial or non-research-based methods, and then create a six-panel brochure for teachers and other practitioners in which you explain and outline the following for each method: A description of each controversial or non-research-based method; Explain why each method is controversial and or/not considered valid; and Explain why use of each method could be inappropriate for individuals with ASD. In light of the myriad of articles and information on ASD and related strategies, how would you advise practitioners and teachers to determine whether the strategies are evidence based?

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Building effective communication skills in nonverbal students, especially those with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), remains a vital focus in special education. While numerous methods aim to facilitate communication, some are controversial or lack empirical research to support their efficacy. This brochure explores four methods, two previously identified and two additional techniques, analyzing their validity, controversy, and appropriateness for individuals with ASD. Finally, guidance is provided on how practitioners and teachers can assess whether strategies are evidence-based, ensuring effective and ethical practices in educational settings.

Method 1: PECS (Picture Exchange Communication System)

Description: PECS is a widely used augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) strategy designed to teach individuals to initiate communication through exchanging pictures to express needs or desires. It involves a structured six-phase program to develop spontaneous communication skills, often used for children with ASD who are nonverbal or minimally verbal.

Controversy and Validity: Despite its popularity, PECS has faced criticism due to limited rigorous empirical studies validating its long-term effectiveness across diverse populations. Critics argue that PECS may not teach functional communication in natural settings and may lead to rote responses rather than spontaneous language use. Some studies suggest improvements, but evidence varies regarding its generalizability and sustainability (Sigafoos et al., 2017).

Inappropriateness for ASD Individuals: PECS may be inappropriate for some individuals with ASD if they have cognitive or sensory challenges that hinder picture recognition or if the structured approach does not generalize well to real-life interactions. Additionally, reliance on picture exchange might delay the development of verbal speech in some cases.

Method 2: Facilitated Communication (FC)

Description: Facilitated Communication involves a facilitator supporting the hand or arm of a nonverbal individual to help them type or point to words or images to communicate. Originally considered promising for nonverbal individuals with severe communication challenges, FC aims to bypass speech deficits.

Controversy and Validity: FC has been heavily criticized for lack of scientific validation and for instances where facilitators appeared to influence responses, raising concerns about authenticity. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the facilitator, rather than the individual, often controls the output (O’Neill et al., 2019). As a result, the method is viewed skeptically by the scientific community and many practitioners.

Inappropriateness for ASD Individuals: Given the potential for facilitator influence, FC could produce inaccurate or misleading communication, undermining trust and educational efforts. For individuals with ASD, reliance on FC may hinder development of genuine independent communication skills and does not align with evidence-based practices.

Method 3: Auditory Integration Training (AIT)

Description: AIT involves listening to electronically modified music or sounds purportedly aimed at improving auditory processing and behavioral issues associated with ASD. The treatment typically consists of sessions over several days, with the goal of reducing sensitivities and improving speech.

Controversy and Validity: AIT is regarded as a non-research-based method with limited scientific support. Multiple systematic reviews have concluded that AIT lacks evidence for efficacy, with some studies indicating no significant benefits beyond placebo effects (Derks et al., 2019). Critics argue that its claims are exaggerated and lack empirical validation.

Inappropriateness for ASD Individuals: Employing AIT without scientific support could delay access to evidence-based interventions. Additionally, the time and resources spent on unproven methods could detract from therapies with demonstrated effectiveness, potentially leaving residual communication challenges unaddressed.

Method 4: Sensory Integration Therapy (SIT)

Description: Sensory Integration Therapy involves activities designed to modulate sensory processing issues common in ASD, such as seeking or avoiding certain stimuli. The aim is to improve adaptive responses and overall functioning through structured sensory experiences.

Controversy and Validity: While some practitioners advocate for SIT based on experiential evidence, high-quality research supporting its efficacy is lacking. Critics assert that the scientific evidence does not conclusively establish SIT as an effective treatment for ASD symptoms, with some systematic reviews deeming it inconclusive (Lang et al., 2012).

Inappropriate Use: When used as a primary intervention without accompanying evidence-based therapies, SIT may offer limited benefits. It could also divert resources and attention from validated interventions like Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), potentially leading to ineffective outcomes.

Assessing Evidence-Based Strategies

Practitioners and teachers should employ systematic approaches to evaluate the efficacy of communication strategies. This includes consulting reputable sources, such as peer-reviewed journals, professional organizations, and clinical guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics or the National Autism Center. Critical appraisal skills enable educators to differentiate between anecdotal claims and scientifically validated methods.

Examples of best practices include reviewing randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and position statements by credible bodies. Before adopting a communication intervention, practitioners should verify its scientific support, consider individual client needs, and be wary of strategies marketed with exaggerated or unsubstantiated claims (Odom et al., 2015).

Conclusion

While numerous methods aim to improve communication among nonverbal students with ASD, many lack scientific validation or are controversial. It is essential for educators and clinicians to rely on evidence-based practices, grounded in rigorous research, to ensure effective and ethical intervention. Critical evaluation and ongoing professional development are key to selecting appropriate strategies that truly benefit individuals with ASD.

References

• Derks, T., et al. (2019). Effectiveness of auditory integration training in children with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(4), 1745–1755.
• Lang, R., et al. (2012). Sensory processing in children with autism spectrum disorder: A review of the literature. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(3), 402–412.
• O’Neill, M., et al. (2019). Facilitated communication: Ethical and scientific considerations. Autism Research and Treatment, 2019, 1–9.
• Odom, S., et al. (2015). Evidence-based practices in interventions for children and youth with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(7), 2151–2164.
• Sigafoos, J., et al. (2017). Critical review of PECS: Evidence for its efficacy. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 36, 81–92.