Comparison of therapist implemented and iPad-assisted interventions for children with autism.

OBJECTIVE: This study compares intervention delivered by a therapist to intervention delivered using an iPad for two children with autism. Further, this study evaluates the influence of choice between the conditions. METHODS: Time on-task, challenging behaviour, session duration and correct responses were compared across conditions in an alternating treatment design. The effect of choice was evaluated in an ABAB design. RESULTS: The iPad was associated with shorter intervention sessions, more time on-task and less challenging behaviour for one participant. There was no difference between conditions for the second participant. Both participants selected the iPad when given the choice and, although the effect of choice was modest, choosing was associated with more time on-task and less challenging behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that iPad-assisted intervention can be as effective as therapist-implemented intervention. Further, even for children for whom no differences between the interventions exist, offering a choice may be beneficial.

Voices from the past: comparing the rapid prompting method and facilitated communication.

OBJECTIVE: This article briefly reviews the history and damage caused by facilitated communication (FC) and highlights the parallels between FC and the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM). BACKGROUND: FC involves a therapist (or facilitator) supporting the hand of a person with autism while a message is typed on a letter board. FC is widely acknowledged to be a pseudoscientific, unsafe, and unethical treatment for people with autism. RPM is a more recent intervention for people with autism that involves the facilitator holding and moving the letter board while the individual with autism moves their own hand. Those who espouse the perceived benefits of FC and RPM make strikingly similar claims of hidden intelligence and extraordinary communication abilities in people with autism following treatment. CONCLUSION: Clients, proponents, and practitioners of RPM should demand scientific validation of RPM in order to ensure the safety of people with disabilities that are involved with RPM.