Dear Ms. Wagner:
We are writing today in response to your article entitled, “Is Autism Treatment Possible?”(http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-Autism-Treatment-Possible?&id=6458523). The rate of autism is currently 1 in 110, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC). This statistic reinforces the fact that there is a great need to educate families on interventions available to them for their children. However, it is unfortunate that you focused your article on non-evidence based treatments. Many families with newly diagnosed children with autism are overwhelmed by all of the interventions available; it is important for them to be able to make informed decisions — by understanding what treatments that have been shown to be efficacious through research — and not rely on subjective descriptions of success. Writing an article on non-evidence based interventions is extremely misleading to families, and actually can turn them in a direction which will not only cost them financially but also waste valuable time that could be spent receiving evidence-based treatments.
In your article, you described multivitamin and mineral nutrient supplements as having “shown a great deal of improvement.” You specifically describe the improvement as “neurological improvement” and “doing better on tests”. Currently very limited research exists to support any efficacy of these interventions with individuals with autism.
Interestingly, you also described applied behavior analysis (ABA), without referring to the 40-plus years of empirical support behind it. Applied behavior analysis is in fact the only intervention that can claim this degree of empirical evidence. In addition, ABA is now widely accepted as the one intervention that is based in science, and thereby recommended for treatment of individuals with autism. Both the U.S. Surgeon General (1999) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) endorse ABA. The New York State Department of Health (DOH) Clinical Practice Guidelines reviewed a number of autism treatments and found behavioral intervention to be the one with the most empirical support as well.
What is most disconcerting is the description of autism treatments as a kind of “menu” from which one can choose a variety of treatments “to find out what works best for them.” You go on to state that: “The search for assistance continues to be sought and not every child or person that is autistic has the same treatment that works. Finding the right treatment often takes trial and error for the doctors, parents and patient.” How disheartening to think that with the level of evidence that is available to support behavioral intervention, effective treatment would need to be “trial and error” for children with ASD. Current scientific evidence shows that when children received an eclectic intervention approach compared to an intensive behavioral approach, the children in the intensive behavioral treatment (IBT) group made greater gains than either of the two eclectic groups. Specifically, after intervention, the children in the IBT group scored in the normal range on a number of dependent measures (e.g., cognitive, non-verbal, communication and motor skills). By contrast, the children in the two eclectic groups scored in the normal range only in the area of motor skills post intervention (Howard, Sparkman, Cohen, Green, and Stanislaw, 2005).
We hope that in the future you will consider publishing articles on science-based interventions for autism for the benefit of your readership.
For further information regarding the numerous interventions for autism and the current state of research, please visit: http://www.nationalautismcenter.org/reports/
Sincerely,
Mary E. McDonald, Ph.D., BCBA-D
Vice President, Association for Science in Autism Treatment
Anya K Silver, M.A., BCBA
Media Review Committee, Association for Science in Autism Treatment
Read More at http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-Autism-Treatment-Possible?&id=6458523
