- Please remember to use non-medicalised language and identity first language. No ‘symptoms’, ‘deficits’, ‘abnormalities’, ‘dysfunction’, ‘ASD individuals’, ‘impairment’, ‘treatment’ and no ‘person with autism’.
- Instead use humanising and destigmatising language such as ‘autistic individuals’, ‘difficulties’, ‘autistic characteristics’, ‘autistic traits’, ‘autistic differences’, ‘autism support approaches’ ‘autism support interventions’ etc.
- Remember to describe then critically evaluate. Question studies then provide good, strong arguments that provide an answer to the questions you have presented using empirical research.
- Start off your analysis of each approach by sufficiently presenting and critiquing the seminal paper.
- Revisit your tasks on Myplace for inspiration and ideas.
- Make sure you follow good APA-7 referencing.
- If you cite the DSM-5 and ICD-11 remember to reference (APA-2013; WHO, 2022).
- All acronyms must be detailed in full in the first instance. There are a lot (e.g. RCT, SCD, EBP, TEACCH, ABA, PECS, II, etc). Write in full.
- Think carefully about the structure of the assignment. Does it flow nicely? Is it coherent?
- Think deeply about LO5 and your practice principles. It should not be purely narrative. Link it to a source of research for any key salient points that you want to highlight.
- Remember think about inclusivity and inclusive practice. Does any of the features of you approaches promote inclusive practice? Some of the features of your approaches may be exclusive (e.g. TEACCH is not suitable for people with visual difficulties or how need a free-flowing, unstructured environment).
Plan outline:
-
Introduction
-
Contextualise essay – what does it aim to do
-
Sate approaches that will be covered
-
Historical context of Evidence based practice (EBP) and autism support interventions (Week 1)
-
EBP definition– David Sackett
-
Practice based evidence
-
Cochrane collaboration – publishing systematic reviews within health care – autism included – before research was not as robust – using interventions that were not EBP. – only RCT – gold standard – controls many variables – claims are stronger (define RCT– excluded single case design (define Single case design)
-
RCT – costly – highly specialized researcher – not guaranteed results in real life settings (study from TAP 2 said interventions in natural settings are more effective?
-
Single case design can be good methodology to support heterogeniatlity of autism- implications?
-
Odom et al /Wong et al – Steinbrenner et al (2020)
-
Smith (2013) – categorization of CTM and FIP – criteria of each
-
References: Odom, S. L., Boyd, B., Hall, L., & Hume, K. (2010). Evaluation of comprehensive treatment models for individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 425-436.
Smith, T (2013). What is evidence based behaviour analysis? Behaviour Analyst, 36, 7-33
Wong et al (2014)
-
Need to source othe references for unqiueness
-
Assessment issues? – social nature – 2-3 issues backed by research
– how might profile of abilities impact validity or reliability of assessments
-
Environmental factors?
-
Good autism guidelines
-
Michelle Dawson video
-
Week 1 papers – Elizabeth boat
-
What are they focusing on? – decreasing autistic mannerisms?
-
Bolte, E.E. & Diehl, J.J. (2013). Measurement Tools and Target Symptoms/Skills Used to Assess Treatment Response for Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder. J Autism Dev Disord,43, 2491–2501.
-
Add other references in
-
ABA
-
What is it / aims
-
Authors
-
FIP/CTM?
-
Underpinning theoretical frameworks – specific dates of these frameworks – critically evaluate and in relation to autism profile
-
must cite Seminal paper – critically analyse – fidelity measures?
-
Assessment tools – support autism profile? Barriers?
-
Wider literature – strengths and weaknesses – efficacy studies??
-
Ethics? Costs? Inclusive? Training? Practical implementation?
-
Practice principles – how do practioners impact results? – i would not use this in my own practice due to the principles not aligning with my core values – backed up with research
references:
Behavioral Treatment and Normal Educational and Intellectual
Functioning in \bung Autistic Children – Lovaas 1987
Lovaas et al 1973
Kupferstein 2018 – evidence of increased ptsd symptoms in autistics exposed to ABA
– include other sources to strengthen or refute points made
Lego therapy
-
What is it / aims
-
Authors
-
FIP/CTM?
-
Underpinning theoretical frameworks
-
must cite Seminal paper – critically analyse – fidelity measures? LeGoff 2004
-
Assessment tools – support autism profile? Barriers?
-
Wider literature – strengths and weaknesses – follow up studies (2014 / 2018?) – efficacy studies??
-
Ethics? Costs? Inclusive? Training? Practical implementation?
-
Practice principles – would i use this in my own practice – yes because i value these principles of the therapy – backed up with references
- Andras, M. (2012). The value of LEGO Therapy in promoting social interaction in primary-aged children with autism. Good Autism Practice, p. 17.
- Hu, X., Zheng, Q., & Lee, G. T. (2018). Using Peer-Mediated LEGO® Play Intervention to Improve Social Interactions for Chinese Children with Autism in an Inclusive Setting. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48: 2444-2457.
- Lindsay, S., Hounsell, K. G., & Cassiani, C. (2017). A scoping review of the role of LEGO therapy for improving inclusion and social skills among children and youth with autism. Disability and Health Journal, 10(2), 173-182.
- LeGoff 2014 and 2018 as follow up comparisons
Include between 40 – 50 references