Vol. 1

No. 2

Fall, 1999

THE NEW SLETTER OF THE A SSOCIATION FOR SCIENCE IN AUTISM TREATMENTASAT SUPPORTS PROVEN TREATMENTS
AND INFORMED CHOICEI
Au t i s m
Re s e a rch Re vie w Inte rn a ti o n a lnane dito rialin(Vol. 13, No. 3, 1999) entitled “TheAB A Co ntro ve rsy,” Dr. B e rn a rd
Rimland described the literatureand positions of the Association for
Science in Autism Treatment (ASAT)
as “nonsensical...counterfa c tua l. . .
indefensible...distorted.” He included
ASAT among a group he characterized as the “ABA [applied behavior
analysis] is the only way folks.” Dr.
Rimland also spent a fair amountof space reviewing the history ofwhat he re presented as his personal
support for ABA. In re spo nse , ASAT
wo uld like to acknowledge Dr.
Rimland’s contributions to the autism
field, and then focus on the real issues
h e re—the health and welfare o fpeople with autism, and the quality of the evidence about autism
treatments—rather than anyone’s
personal history, or opinions, or
support for one treatment approachor another.
Without question, Dr. Rimland had
a heroic moment in the 1960s when
he challenged the self-assured pronouncements of the psychodynamic,“refrigerator mother” camp about thecause and treatment of autism. He
deserves a place in the annals ofautism advocacy as someone who

was courageous enough to challenge
powe rful myths and self-proclaime dauthorities, and who compiled th e
the n-e me rgent evidence that autism
is a disorder of brain developmentthat is not caused by bad pare nting.
B ut a review of the past few
years of Autism Re se arch Re vie w
Inte rnatio nal (ARRI) reveals a consistent pattern of pre ma ture anduncritical promo tion of tre a tme n t“b re akthroughs” in the absence of
c redible re se arch support. A numberof scientific reviewers have c o nc lude d that many o f those tre a tments have proved ineffective or
harmful. The research that appears
to support several other treatments
is methodologically weak, and stillothers have yet to be evaluated carefully. These include anti-fungal tre atme nts, auditory integration training,
dimethylglycein, dolphin therapy,
drum therapy (“Rhythmic Entrainment Intervention”), facilitated communic ation, gluten-and casein-fre ediets, holding therapy, intravenous
gamma globulin, secretin, sensory
integration therapy, and vitamin
megadoses. Two recent and thorough multidisciplinary reviews foundthat those treatments are far fro mbeing “bre akthroughs,” or even helpful adjunct treatments for autism, as

they have been portrayed in ARRI
( se e NY, Maine Issue Evide nce -Base d Asse ssme nts o f Autism Inte-r
ve ntio ns in this issue of Scie nce inAutism Tre a tm e nt, Vol. 1, Fall, 1999).

Consider just a few examples:
Facilitated Communication (FC)was initially given positive coveragein ARRI, which he lpe d spur its
wide spread, uncritical adoption. Data
from numerous controlled studies
showing that people with disabilities
were not the ones communicating
through FC, and reports of families
de stroyed by false allegations madethrough FC, were eventually reported
in ARRI. B y that time , however,hundreds of thousands of taxpayer
dollars and uncounted hours had
been spent on FC instead of onsafe, effective, validated methods
for teaching people with autism tocommunicate for themselves. Basedon their own reviews of the scientificevidence, several reputable organizations issued position statements
to the effect that FC has no validity
or reliability. The first was The
American Academy o f Child andAdolescent Psychiatry, which statedin 1993 that “Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that FC is not ascientifically valid technique forindividuals with autism or mental

SCIENCE IN AUTISM TREATMENT

FALL 1999

ASAT BOARD OF DIRECTORSEDITORIAL:

Richard Foxx, PhD

Dear Colleague,

Sigrid Glenn, PhD

ASAT would like to share our science-based resources with everyone
who wants them, free of charge. But to do that, we need your financial
help as quickly as possible. As we fight for our children’s futures, wehave learned that educational outreach based upon accurate, scientifically-sound information is one of our best advocacy weapons.
Accurately informed educators, pediatricians, psychologists, hearing
officers, attorneys, legislators and policy-makers can have a direct,
positive impact on our children’s quality of care and education.

Gina Green, PhD
John Jacobson, PhD
Lawrence Lee, MD
Suzanne Letso
Catherine Maurice, PhD
James Mulick, PhD
Susan Niederberger
Lora Perry, MS
Raymond Romanczyk, PhD
Gerald Shook, PhD
Bridget Taylor, PsyD

A single print run of this newsletter costs thousands of dollars. ASAT
is entirely donor supported. If you like what you see in these pages,
please send your generous, tax deductible contribution so that ASAT
can continue to disseminate accurate, science-based informa tio n ,and promote access to effective autism treatment. Just fill out theattached coupon and mail it today.
Thank you!

— Lora Perry, Managing Editor

EXECUTIVE STAFF
Marissa Bennett“It is science that guides us, but love that inspir es us,
and we will not fail our childr en.”

Kathy Mannion— Catherine Maurice

Joan Davin, Acting Director

ASAT MISSION STATEMENTASSOCIATION FOR SCIENCE IN AUTISM TREATMENTSouth Hills Medical Building
Suite 201575 Coal Valley Road
Jefferson Hills, Pennsylvania 15025
Phone: 412-469-7600
Fax: 412-469-7601
E-mail: ASAT@autism-treatment.org

To disseminate accurate, scientifically sound information about autism andtreatments for autism.
To improve access to effective, science-based treatments for all people with
autism, re gardless of age, severity of condition, income, or place of re side nc e .

WE WILL FULFILL OUR MISSION BY• Educating pro fessio nals and the public about state-of-the-art, valid
treatments for people with autism

Article submissions and letters to ASAT should be
addressed to ASAT, 575 Coal Valley Road, Suite 201,
Pittsburgh, PA 15025. Our fax number is 412-469-7601.
Our e-mail address is ASAT@ autism-tre atme nt. o rg.
Submissions should include the writer’s full name,address and home telephone number. Submissions
may be edited for clarity or space.
To order back issues, call ASAT at 412-469-7600.
Articles in Science in Autism Treatment are theauthors’ intellectual property. They may be copied
by others and disseminated, provided that a) they
are reprinted in their entirety; b) correct attribution(author name and ASAT affiliation) is cited; and c)
written permission is obtained from ASAT.

All Rights Reserved
Asso ciatio n fo r Science in Autism Tre a tme n t.
The contents of this newsletter cannot be reproduced without permission from the Associationfor Science in Autism Treatment.

©

• Supporting certification, to ensure all individuals with autism receive treatment from practitioners who have met minimum standards of competency• Forming interactive, supportive partnerships with universities to develop
accredited educational programs for autism practitioners• Improving standards of care for people with autism

VALUES STATEMENTASAT is committed to science as the most objective, time-tested and re liable approach to discerning between safe, effective autism tre atme nts,
and those that are harmful or ineffective. ASAT supports all scientifically sound re se arch on the prevention, treatment and cure of autism, as
well as all treatments fo r autism that are shown to be effe c tive
through solid scientific research, regardless of discipline or domain.

ASAT

2

Providing Accurate, Science-Based Information ◆ Promoting Access To Effective Treatment.

SCIENCE IN AUTISM TREATMENT

retardation.’’ This was followed bycomparable statements by The
American Psychological Association(1994), The American SpeechLanguage-Hearing Association (1994),
T he Ame rican As so ciatio n o n
Me ntal Re tardation ( 1994) , The
Association for B ehavior Analysis(1995), and The American Academyof Pediatrics (1998). At least 40
c o ntrolled studies and numero us
legal proceedings have now demonstrated that FC is invalid, unre liab le ,and harmful; no methodologicallysound studies have produced compelling evidence that it is effective.
This led the New Yo rk State
Department of Health (NYSDOH)
review panel to conclude, “Becauseof the lack of evidence for efficacy
and possible serious harm of using
facilitated communication, it isstrongly recommended that facilitated communication not be used as

Th e Asso ci a ti o n f o r Sci en ce
i n Au ti sm Tr ea tm en t i s
n o t a ga i n st ch o i ce.
We a r e f o r informed ch o i ce.
an intervention method in young
c hildren with autism.” (New Yo rk
State Department of Health, 1999).
Auditory integration training (AIT)
has been strongly endorsed in thepages of ARRI over the past several
years. In co ntrast, The American
Academy of Audiology (1993) and
The American Speech-LanguageHearing Association (1994) issued
a policy stateme nt and technicalreport, respectively, to the effect thatAIT lacked scientific validity andhad potential negative side effects,
including hearing loss. In Au g u s t
199 8, the Ame rican Academy of
Pediatrics declared that “...as yet
the re are no good controlled studies
to support its use,” and further noted
that, “Although AIT practitionersde c la re the technique to be safe,th e re is so me information aboutboth the quality control characteristics of the equipment used andFALL 1999

po tentially unsafe sound levels
produced by it.” The NYSDOH panel
fo und that o nly one of 16 published articles on AIT with children
with autism met established criteria
for adequate evidence of effic ac y.
That study found no major diffe rences between a group of children
with autism who received AIT anda group who listened to unmodified music. The panel’s conclusion?
“B ecause of the lack of demonstrated efficacy and the expense of
the intervention, it is re co mme nde dthat auditory integration training not
be used as an intervention for young
children with autism.” (New YorkState Department of Health, 1999).
Sensory inte gration therapy has
also been promoted in ARRI,
although careful scrutiny of theresearch on this popular intervention has consistently failed tounco ver any sound scientific evidence that it produces meaningful
outcomes for peo ple with autism
or other developmental disorde rs.
This was the conclusion o f boththe NYSDOH and the Maine
Administrators of Services for
Ch ildren with Disabilities (MADSEC) review panels; in fact, the
NYSDOH literature search found
29 articles on the use of sensory
integration therapy, none of which
met criteria for adequate evidenceo f efficacy. Readers are also
re fe rred to articles on sensory integration therapy in this issue of
Science in Autism Tre a tm e n t, a swell as critical reviews of sensory
integration therapy by Are n dt,
MacLean, and B aumeister ( 1988),
and Shore (1994).
Megado ses o f vitamin B6 andm a g n e s i u m h a ve l o n g b e e n
p romo ted in ARRI, with re p e a te dassertions that they are totallyharmless. In contrast, a blue-ribbon
panel of reviewers co nvened by
the National Institute of Mental
Health stated in 1995 that althoughmost studies of vitamin B 6 withc h ildren with autism re p o rte d
imp rovements,”... all studies hadserious methodological pro b le ms,
and there is no good rationale forusing vitamin B6 with this population” (Singh, Ellis, Mattila, Mulick &Poling, 1995). Another recent re vie w
o f re se a rch o n vitamin B 6 andmagnesium in the treatment ofautism concluded, “The majority ofstudies report a favorable response
to vitamin treatment. However,in te rp retation of these positive
findings needs to be tempere db e c ause of methodological shortcomings inherent in many of thestudies” (Pfeiffe r, Norton, Nelson,& Shott, 1995). The NYSDOH panel
reached similar conclusions, andfurther noted that chro nic use ofvitamin B 6 has been reported tocause peripheral neuropathy (weakness, numbness, and/or unpleasantse ns atio ns in the e x tre m i t i e s ) .

Ou r va lu es sta tem en t clea r ly
sti p u la tes th a t AS AT wi ll
s u p p o r t a n y tr ea tm en t th a t i s
sh o wn to b e ef f ecti ve o r p r o m i s i n g i n m eth o d o lo gi ca lly r i go r o u s stu d i es—n o t i n sp ecu la ti ve
a r ti cles , o r testi m o n i a ls , o r
su r veys , o r o p i n i o n p o lls .
Children who receive even modest
doses over long periods may be atrisk for this side effect, but nolo n g-te rm studies have examinedthat possibility (New York State
Department of Health, 1999). Thisside effect was also noted by Dr.
Victor Herbert in a chapter of theb o o k The He alth Ro b b e rs: A Clo se
Lo o k at Quack e ry in Ame rica (alsosee Quackwatch.com). Dr. Herbert
stated the facts plainly: “Many substances that are harmless in small
or moderate doses can be harmful
either in large doses or by gradualbuild-up over many years. Just
because a substance ( such as a
vitamin) is found naturally in fooddoes not mean it is harmless inlarge doses” (p. 24).

ASAT

Providing Accurate, Science-Based Information ◆ Promoting Access To Effective Treatment.

3

SCIENCE IN AUTISM TREATMENT

The most recent treatment to be
hailed in ARRI as an effective treatment for autism is the hormo n ese c retin. However, when secre tin
was presented in a series of media
reports last year as “po ssibly themost impo rtant discovery in thehistory of autism,” there was not asingle controlled study to support
the claim that it produced large ,functionally significant impro vements in children with autism—
me rely anecdotal reports. Secre tin
has been approved only for singledose administrations to test gastrointestinal functioning in adults,
with cautions about its potential
for producing severe allergic reactions. Whether it is safe to use withtypically developing childre n —much less children with compromised central nervous systems—isunknown. Concerned pare n ts,
physicians, and other professionals

Ho w m u ch ti m e ca n p a r en ts,
p r o f essi o n a ls, a n d p eo p le wi tha u ti sm a f f o r d to sp en d i n
p u r su i t o f e ver y tr ea tm en t
th a t so m eo n e cla i m s i s a“d r a m a ti c d evelo p m en t”
o r “b r ea k th r o u gh ?”pointed out these facts, along withthe fact that the secretin pre paration contains other ingredients thathave known harmful side effe c ts,
including neurotoxicily (see Sc ie n c e
in Autism Tre a tm e n t, Vol. I, Spring,1999). The American Academy ofChild and Adolescent Psychiatry
issued a policy statement on March 3,
1999 to pro mote awareness thatthe use of secretin has not yet
been proven safe in co ntro lle dstudies. Several reputable investigators have conducted or are conducting evaluatio ns of secre tin
with children with autism; it will be
inte resting to see what is re ve ale dwhen placebo and observer bias
e ffects are well controlled, and thec hildren’s functioning is assessed by

FALL 1999

direct observational measures according to the standards of good sc ie nc e .
Meanwhile, secretin continues to bepromoted in ARRI.
Co uld it be that the afore me ntioned professional orga n iza tio n s,
reviewers, scientists, and pare n ts,
along with ASAT, have all beendead wrong about the scientificevidence for these treatments, while
Dr. Rimiand is correct in assertingthat “...several treatment approaches...
clearly meet the criterion of scientific validation,” including vitaminand dietary interventions? Is theconclusion reached by the NYSDOH and MADSEC panels andother reviewers that AB A is thebest-validated treatment curre n tly
available really ludicrous, false,
ab surd, nonsensical, counterfac tual,indefensible, distorted, and wro ng,
to use some of Dr. Rimland’s terms?
Readers must answer those questions for themselves, of course, but
in so doing we urge considerationo f the facts presented above, as
well as the following: Contrary to
Dr. Rimland’s statements, there aremany accepted scientific methods
for evaluating treatment effe c ts
besides double-blind group studies. For instance, there are several
other types of research designs inwhich a group of individuals who
receive a specific treatment is comp a red with a group who re c e ive
no particular treatment, or anothertreatment altogether. There are also
single-subject re se arch designs, inwhich treatment-no treatment comparisons are made with the same
individual, and replicated with that
individual and others. More o ve r,
treatment effects can–and should–beme a sured by methods other thanthe laboratory assays of substancesin the blood or urine that Dr.
Rimland espouses. In fact, such substances may have little or no b e aring on how an individual listens,le arns, walks or talks. Changes inthose and other aspects of functioning must be measured directly.
T h e re are numero us scientificmethods for doing so. Finally, contemporary ABA is much more richand complex than the “operant
conditioning” methods Dr. Rimlandsays he observed in the 1960s, andhas a substantial research foundation. [Se e side b ar]
The re are some other importantquestions we urge readers to consider carefully. How much time canparents, professionals, and people
with autism affo rd to spend in pursuit of every treatment that someone
claims is a “dramatic development”
or “bre akthrough?” How much private and public money continues tobe poured into these “options”
b e fo re they fizzle out (or not), only
to be supplanted by another one?
How many children are being
used as subjects in uncontro lle d,un mo n ito red “experiments” bypeople who have been encouraged to “press all the buttons,” andWe h o ld th a t p a r en ts h a ve n o t
o n ly th e r i gh t to ch o o se tr ea tm en ts f o r th ei r ch i ld r en , b u t
a lso th e r esp o n si b i li ty to m a k e
su r e th a t th o se tr ea tm en ts a r eb a sed o n so u n d evi d en ce o f
sa f ety a n d ef f ecti ven ess.
“try anything and everything thatyou think may be helpful”?
Contrary to the implications of the
ARRI editorial, The Association for
Science in Autism Treatment is notagainst choice. We are forinf o r m e d choice. In the realm ofautism tre atme nt, ASAT believes thattrue choice is possible only whenthose making the choices are fully
info rmed of the degree to which
each treatment has been shown tobe, or feasibly promises to be, effe ctive and safe in peer-reviewed scientific studies. It is a contradictionof the notion of informed choice tofail to fully disclose the gaps or
weaknesses in the evidence about
any treatment, and to publicly attack
those who raise legitimate questions
about the quality of that evidence.

ASAT

4

Providing Accurate, Science-Based Information ◆ Promoting Access To Effective Treatment.

SCIENCE IN AUTISM TREATMENT

Nor is ASAT an “ABA only” organization. On the contrary, many ofthe parents and pro fessionals on
ASAT’s Board would like nothing
better than to find an effe c tive
alternative to the hard, expensive,
and time-consuming work entailedin AB A programming. ASAT ’s
Advisory B o ard draws from a variety of disciplines in the biologicaland behavioral sciences. Our values
statement clearly stipulates that
ASAT will support any tre atme n tthat is shown to be effective or
promising in methodologically rigo rous studies–not in speculative
articles, or testimonials, or surveys,
or opinion polls.
At the same time, ASAT does notsuggest that anyone’s statements
about treatments for autism should
be taken at face value, including
ours. ASAT’s Board and supporters
include many pro fessionals andparents with a great deal of knowledge about autism. Nevertheless,we do not claim any exclusive
moral high ground because we are
p a rents, or that we have all theanswe rs because we are pro fe ssionals. We know that we all need
to be vigilant about the limits ofo ur knowledge. And, no matter
how numerous our supporters, wewill not cite opinion polls to buttress our positions. Popularity has
never been any guarantee of truth.
ASAT enco urages parents andprofessionals to become informe dabout the quality of the evidence
that supports all claims aboutautism treatments. We hold thatparents have not only the right tochoose treatments fo r their children, but also the responsibility tomake sure that those tre a tme n ts
a re based on sound evidence o fsafety and effectiveness. Tho se
who support ASAT’s efforts do so
because they know that humane,
ethical application of scientificknowledge is necessary to ensurethat everyone who is ill, disabled,
young, or otherwise vulnerable
receives the best possible care .
Ch ildren and adults with autism
deserve no less.

FALL 1999

HOW CREDIBLE IS THE RESEARCH ON
ABA TREATMENT FOR AUTISM?
In his editorial in ARRI, Dr. Rimland referred to only one ABA study, theLovaas (1987) study of early intensive behavioral intervention. The fact isthat something in excess of 550 controlled studies published in the professional literature since the 1960s document the effectiveness of ABA methods for produc ing functional impro vements in many skill domains ofpeople with autism. (DeMyer, Hingtgen & Jackson, 1981; Hingtgen &Bryson, 1972; Matson, et al, 1996).
D r. Rimland characterized methods of measuring treatment effects in
ABA studies as “subjective” and “soft,” and implied that they are not “scientifically replicable.” That is inaccurate. In ABA studies, treatment effects
are measured by repeated direct observations of individuals over time.
Treatment procedures as well as potential treatment effects are defined inobservable, measurable terms. Specific procedures are followed to control
for biases inherent in human observations, inc luding verificatio n bytrained independent observers, objective measurement criteria, reliabilityme asures, and others. These methods have been well described in the
behavior analysis and therapy literature for decades, replicated in thousands of published studies, and widely adopted by many behavioral scientists. Indeed, since autism is currently behaviorally defined anddiagnosed, behavioral observation and measurement methods could beincorporated into evaluations of virtually all types of treatments for autism.
Single-subject re se arch methods are among the hallmarks of applied
behavior analysis. Controlled comparisons of a particular treatment withno treatment, or with another treatment, are made with the same individual(s). In the single subject approach, treatments are deemed effe c tive
only if they result in functio nal imp r o v e m e n ts for the individuals
in vo lve d— e ffects that are typically much large r, in terms of measure dgains, than effects that are found to be statistically significant in comparisons of averaged data in group research studies. Single-subject designs
are particularly useful for evaluating treatment effects in typical educationand treatment settings, since most practitioners are concerned with individual clients or learners, rather than groups. B ecause individuals diagnosed with autism o ften differ considerably from one another, theintensive focus on the individual also makes single-subject research methods well-suited for studying treatment effects in autism.

REFERENCES
Arendt, R.E., MacLean, W.E., Jr., & Baumeister, A.A.
(1988). Critique of sensory integration therapy andits application in mental re ta rdation. Am e ri c a n
J o u rnal o n Me ntal Re tar d a tio n, 5, 401-411.

ment of autistic persons: A review of re se arch fro m1980 to the present. Re s e a rc h in De ve lo p me ntal
Dis a b ilitie ,s 17, 433-465.

D e Mye r, M.L, Hingtgen, J.N., & Jackson, R.K.
(1981) Infantile autism re vie we d: A de cad e o f
re se arch. Schizo phre nia Bulle tin, 7, 388-451

Clinical Practice Guideline : The Guideline Te c h n ic a l
Re p o rt.Autism/ Pe rvasive De ve lo pme ntal Diso dr e rs ,Asse ssme nt and Inte rve ntion fo r Yo ung Childre n(Age 0-3 Years). Author; 1999 Publication No. 4217.

Herbert, V. (1993). Vitamin pushers and foodquacks. In S. Barrett & W. T. Jarvis ( Eds.), T h e

New York State Department of Health (1999).

Pfe iffe r, S.l., Norton, J., Nelson, L., & Shott, S. (1995).

he alth ro b be rs: A clo se loo k at q uack e ry in Ame rica Efficacy of vitamin B6 and magnesium in the tre at(pp. 23-44). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Hingtgen, J.N., & Bryson, C.Q. (1972). Recent developments in the study of early childhood psychoses:
Infantile autism, childhood schizophrenia, andrelated disorders. Sc h iz o p h er nia Bulle tin , 5, 8-24.
Lovaas, O.l. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal intellectual and educational functioning in
autistic c hildren. J o u rnal o f Co nsulting andClinical Psycho lo gy, 55, 3-9.
Matson, J.L., B enavidez, D.A., Compton, L.S.,
Paclwaskyj, T., & Baglio, C. (1996). Behavioral tre at-ment of autism: A methodology review and summaryof outcomes. Jo u rnal o f Autism and Developme ntal
Dis o rd e rs ,25, 481-493.
Sh o re, B .A. (1994). Sensory-integrative therapy.

Se lf-lnjury Ab stracts & Re vie ws, 3 (1), 1-7.
Singh, N.N., Ellis, C.R., Mattila, M.J., Mulick, J.A., &Poling, A. (1995). NIMH Psycho pharmaco lo gy co n-se nsus p ane l hand b o o k : Vitamin, mine ral, andd ie tary tre atme nts fo r ind ividuals w ith de ve lo pme ntal d isab ilitie s. Columbus, OH: Ohio State
University, Nisonger Center UAP.

— ASAT Bo ard

ASAT

Providing Accurate, Science-Based Information ◆ Promoting Access To Effective Treatment.

5

SCIENCE IN AUTISM TREATMENT

FALL 1999

LOOKING AHEAD
I

was flipping through re c e n tly
developed photographs looking,as I usually do, for the pictures thatstand out. I’m always looking for
those special images that capture ap recious expression, a beautiful
face or a special memory. As I
se a rched through the pile ofme dio c re pictures, I came acro ss
one that brought tears to my eyes.
My son Daniel was perched in atree lo oking down at his Daddy
with a smile of recognition anddelight. My husband Tom wasa ffectionately re turning Daniel’s
smile, echoing this delight. For
most families, this scene would be
typical; but parents of childre nwith autism know just how precious it is to have your child recognize your presence, and to return
your love and affection.
I painfully remembered the rejection we had once felt from Daniel.
Years ago he showed no recognition of us, and in fact seemed to
be tortured by us. Our pre se n c e
was interfering, rather than comforting. Our touch seemed to be
painful, rather than soothing. Oura ffection triggered anxiety, rather
than comfort. Our voices we remeaningless, rather than familiar.
Our love was unnoticed, unwanted
and seemingly unnecessary.
We picked Daniel up out of his
crib in the morning, and he would
push our faces away. We desperately wanted a good morning kiss,but instead we were
greeted with what To mtermed “our good morning slap in the face.” We
longed to feel a connection from Daniel, some
so rt of recognition that
we existed in his world.
We wanted to be known,
we wanted to be loved,
and we wanted desperately to be needed. It wasquite obvious, though,that we were not needed.
I remember many tearful
conversations when To mwould say “I just want
him to love me back.”
Things have changed
dramatically. Daniel recognizes us, seeks us out
and returns our affection. It didn’t
just “happen,” though. Like everything else in his life, Daniel needed
to be systematically taught. He
needed to be taught that I am
called Mommy, and Tom is called
Daddy. He needed to be taught totolerate our touch, to attend to our
voices, to understand our words,
to reco gnize our faces, and torespond to our affection. And we
needed to be taught how to establish ourselves as meaningful inDaniel’s life. Thro ugh years of
training and practice, we were
eventually able to teach Daniel
how to love us, and we were able
to create within Daniel a desire to

Da niel Ma nnion with his fa ther, Tombe with us. His love, hugs, kisses
and smiles are now a part of oureveryday lives.
In the day-to -day struggles ofteaching Daniel, trying to meet hisneeds, structuring his time and guiding his behavior, the road ahead canstill seem so long. I am often overwhelmed by how far we still needto go, and frustrated by the uncertainty of where we’ll end up.
On this day, though, as I lookedat that photograph, I re min de dmyself of just how far we havecome. I realized that sometimes, I
need to look back, to find thestrength to look ahead.

— Kathy Mannio n

Do you have a child with autism?
Mar ch 9 - 1 0 , 2 0 0 0
Fir st I nter national Confer ence
S cience in Autism Tr eatment
New Yor k City

Find out what works.
ASAT

6

Providing Accurate, Science-Based Information ◆ Promoting Access To Effective Treatment.

SCIENCE IN AUTISM TREATMENT

FALL 1999

UPDATES:
CREDENTIALING

D

irectors of the Behavior Analyst
Certification Board (BACB) havedeveloped eligibility standards for
BACB certification, as well as criteria by which individuals curre ntly
certified under existing state programs can transfer certification to
the BACB. Eligibility standards for
BACB certification are substantiallyequivalent to those used by the succ e ssful Florida B ehavior Analysis
Certification Program, and by otherexisting state certification programsin California, Texas, Pennsylvania,
New York and Oklahoma. As in thestate programs, the BACB will certify
individuals at the bachelor’s degre elevel ( B oard Certified Associate
Behavior Analyst) and at the master’s
de gree and above level ( B oard
Certified B ehavior Analyst). The
BACB will administer its first examination to eligible candidates at the
Washington D.C. Associatio n for
Behavior Analysis Convention in
May, 2000.

The following individuals have been appointed
to the BACB Board of Directors:
D r. James Johnston of Auburn
University, representing the Association for Behavior Analysis; Dr. Jon
Bailey of Florida State University,
re p re se nting State Asso c iatio ns
fo r B e havio r Analysis ; Mic hae l
Hemingway, Director of the Florida
program, re presenting Florida; Dr.
Jerry Shook, Executive Director of

BACB; and Dr. Catherine Maurice,
re presenting consumers of behavior
analysis services.
For current information on allaspe cts o f th e B ACB , g o towww.BACB.com.

— Ge rald L. Sho o k , PhD, CBA/ FL,
Exe cutive Dire cto r

AACAP ISSUES POLICY STATEMENT OF SECRETIN

On March 3, 1999 the American
Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry issued the following Policy Statement on the use of
se c retin in the treatment of autism.
POLICY STATEMENT
American Association of Child andAdolescent Psychiatry
Sec retin in the Treatment of Autism
Appro ve d b y the Co uncil o n March 3, 1999

Se c retin is a polypeptide neurotransmitter involved in digestion.
This agent has been approved by
the Food and Drug Administration
for use in the diagnosis of gastro intestinal problems in adults; re pe ate d

use has not been approved by the
FDA. Several anecdotal reports havesuggested that secretin may ameliorate some of the symptoms ofautism and one open study of thre ec hildren has been reported. The
mechanism of action is unclear;
there are not yet appropriate controlled studies which support theuse of this agent, nor has it been
de te rmined that it is safe for re pe ate dadministration. Accordingly, the useof this agent should be considered
unproven and experimental.
Given the severity of autism, parents and family members are often
willing to try treatments thatp romise improvement, but are

un p ro ven. Such treatments areusually based on anecdotal reportsthat are often unsubstantiated bymo re rigorous re se arch; the shortterm change reported may be nonspecific and unsustained.
Families should be helped tomake informed decisions about
their use of alternative or nonestablished treatments, including care ful
consideration of risks and benefits.
The American Academy of Childand Adolescent Psychiatry supports
the study of all promising tre atme nts
by well designed re se arc h.
Co p yright © Ame rican Asso ciatio n o f
Child & Ado le sce nt Psychiatry, 1999

ASAT

Providing Accurate, Science-Based Information ◆ Promoting Access To Effective Treatment.

7

SCIENCE IN AUTISM TREATMENT

FALL 1999

ASAT’ S GREEN, OTHER BOARD MEMBERS
AT CHICAGO CONVENTION“I

t is clearly a mistake to underestimate the power of pseudoscience and the pseudosolutions
it offers,” warned Gina Green, PhD
during her Presidential address to
the Association for Behavior Analysis
in Chicago. “Pseudoscience posessuch a threat to society that it
behooves the entire scientific community to do everything it can tocounter its influences.”
Speaking to more than 2100 attendees at the May convention, Gre e nurged scientists to prevent the “NewAge from devolving into a new
Dark Age, and to find real solutions
to increasingly difficult pro b le ms.”
G reen announced that the
Association for Behavior Analysis isparticipating in efforts to have the
US Co ngre ss de clare the firs t
decade of the new millennium as
the De c ade o f B e h avio r. The
Decade of B ehavior will “set thestage for behavioral science tomake gains in re se a rch funding,training opportunities, and public
visibility comparable to gains madeb y ne uro sc ie nc e durin g th e
Decade of the Brain,” Green said.
Advancements are likely in theareas of “B rain-behavior re latio ns,
behavioral pharmacology, behavioral development, autism andother disabilities, education, andtranslating laboratory models o fclinical problems into application.”
The importance of science was atheme echoed by ASAT board members Richard Foxx, John Jacobson,
Suzanne Letso, and Catherine Maurice
during a panel discussion on science and the treatment of autism.
Each of these speakers emphasized
the need for both parents and professio nals to seek out accurate,
objective information about autism
and its treatments. “Resources are
sc a rce,” Jacobson said, “and wecannot afford to use precious timeor funds on interventions with little
or no basis in empirical data.”
During the opening event, ASAT
Board member Gerald Shook was
h o n o red by the Society for the
Advancement of Behavior Analysis
with SABA’s Public Service award.
O the r SAB A awa rd re c i p i e n t s
included O gden Lindsley, Juan
Robinson Lopez, Patricia J. Krantz
and Lynn McClannahan.
ASAT B oard members including
Sigrid Glenn, John Jaco bson,
La wrence Lee, James Mulick,
Gerald Shook and Bridget Ta ylo r
participated in presentations on
to pics explo ring functio nal co mmunication, supported inclusion,c re de ntialing, an d building ab e havio r analytic educational program, among other issues.
“It has been estimated that only
about 5% of the population today
has basic scientific literacy skills,”
Green pointed out during her speech.
This can have “rather frightening
implications when you consider
that o ur live s are in cre a s i n g l yaffected by the findings and products of science.”
At the co nclusion of the
Presidential address, the audience
responded with a standing ovationand expressions of support. “Dr.
Green has tirelessly challenged thepsychological, educational and medical communities to bring the objective measures of science to autism
treatment for over 25 years,” said
Joan Davin, Executive Director of
ASAT. “Yet at the same time, Dr.
G reen maintains the compassionate perspective that good science isa tool to help people with autism
learn skills that will enable them tolead rich lives. The Association for
Science in Autism Treatment and the
Association for Behavior Analysis
are most fortunate to benefit from
Gina Green’s integrity, scholarshipand compassion.”Thank you...
Steve and Sally Br adford and Kassie Davin for
their ongoing suppor t of ASAT’s tr avel ex penses.
ASSOCIATION FOR SCIENCE IN AUTISM TREATMENT

8Fed Ex for the ir gene r ous cor p or a te sup p or t.

ASAT

Providing Accurate, Science-Based Information ◆ Promoting Access To Effective Treatment.

SCIENCE IN AUTISM TREATMENT

FALL 1999

ASAT HONORS PA DIRECTOR OF
SPECIAL EDUCATIONAASAT Boa rd Mem ber, Richa rd Foxx, PhD
presenting awa rd to Willia m Penn, EdD

SAT was pleased to honor William Penn, EdD,
D irector of the B ureau of Special Education,
Pennsylvania Department of Education, for his outstanding efforts to advance science-based tre atme nt
and education for Pennsylvania citizens with autism.
The award was made at a receptio n in Dr. Penn’s
honor on August 8, 1999, during the Pennsylvania
Summer Autism Institute. In addition to ASAT Board
members and invited guests, National Institutes o f
Child He alth and Human Development Dire c to r
Duane Alexander, MD, and Penn State’s Jack
Neisworth, PhD, expressed appreciation for Dr.
Penn’s commitment. Penn credited Fran Warkomski,
PhD for her own significant contributions in developing the Commonwealth’s first graduate-level certificate program in applied behavior analysis, incooperation with Ed Donovan, Director of Statewide
Programming for Continuing and Distance Education
at Pennsylvania State University, and Gerald Shook,
PhD, Executive Dire c to r, Behavior Analyst Certification Board, (BACB) Inc. This year’s Summer Autism
Institute, entitled “Progress Through Partnership,” featured several key presentations by ASAT Board members on science-based treatment technology, and wasattended by over 700 participants. In addition, 52 people participated in the behavior analyst certification
coursework offe red during the week-long pro gram.

NICHD Director,
Dua ne Alexa nder,MD, with ASAT
boa rd m em ber,
Suza nne Letsoa nd ASAT Executive
Sta ff, Ka thy Ma nnion
a nd Ma rissa Bennett

ASAT

Providing Accurate, Science-Based Information ◆ Promoting Access To Effective Treatment.

9

SCIENCE IN AUTISM T REATMENT

FALL 1999

NEW YORK, MAINE ISSUE EVIDENCE- BASEDASSESSMENTS FOR AUTISM INTERVENTIONS

R

ecently, the New York State
Department of Health (NYSDOH) Early Intervention Pro gramand the Maine Administrators ofServices fo r Childre n with Dis abilitie s (MADSEC) have indepen dently completed compre h e n sive ,multidisciplinary reviews of the scientific evidence about interventions for autism. The NYSDOH
review panel also generated evidence-based guidelines for behavio ral, educatio nal and medical
asse ssment of young children with
autism. Both reports concluded thatapplie d behavior analysis is scientifically validated as an effe c tive

B o th r ep o r ts co n clu d ed
th a t a p p li ed b eh a vi o ra n a lys i s i s s ci en ti f i ca lly
va li d a ted a s a n ef f ecti ve
i n ter ven ti o n f o r a u ti s m .
intervention for autism. The New
York re vie w panel re c o mme n de dthat “principles of applied behavior
analysis (ABA) and behavior intervention strategies be included as
an important element of any intervention program for young child re n with autism” ( G u i d e l i n e
Technical Report, p. IV-15).
One or both panels concluded
that there is no o r insufficientscientific e vidence to support theefficacy of other interventions,
including sensory integration therapy, Greenspan’s “floor time,” vitamin therapy, special diets, hormo ne ssuch as secretin and ACTH, and anti-

yeast therapies. These were notre commende d as primary inte rventions for children with autism.
Still other interventions, including
fac ilitated communication, auditory
inte gratio n training, and intravenous immune globulin therapy
we re fo und to be ineffective orh armful in sound studies, so one
or both panels recommended thatthey no t be used with childre nwith autism.
The New York clinical practiceguidelines focus on children under
three years of age, but the review
panel noted that its recommendations are also applicable to somewhat
older children. MADSEC’s report isintended to be a guide for educatorsof children birth through 20.
Ac c o rding to the NYSDOH re po rt,“The impact of clinical practiceguidelines for the Early Intervention Program will depend on theirc redibility with families, service
providers, and public officials. To
e nsure a credible product, the NYSDO H elected to use an evidencebased, multidisciplinary consensus
panel approach. The methodology
used for these guidelines was established by the Agency for Health Care
Policy and Research (AHCPR). The
DOH selected the AHCPR model forthis effort because it is an effe ctive ,scientific, and well-tested appro ac h
to guideline development” ( G uideline Technical Report, p.xi).
The (MADSEC) autism task force
also to o k an e vide nc e -ba se dapproach to assessing interventions
fo r autism. They noted that “aninterventio n for individuals with
autism can be characterized in oneof four ways:
It may be objectively substantiatedas effective based upon the scopeand quality of scientific research. It
may anecdotally show pro mise ,but is not yet objectively substantiated as effective using contro lle dstudies and subject to the rigors ofgood science. It may have been
repeatedly subjected to the rigors
of science, which leads numerous

Au th o r s o f th e Ne w Yo r k
a n d Ma i n e r ep o r ts m a d e i tclea r th a t, a t p r es en t, th er eco m m en d a ti o n s o f th ei rr es p ecti ve p a n els a r e n o t
m a n d a to r y s ta n d a r d s o f
p r a cti ce. B o th p a n els
em p h a s i zed , h o we ver, th a t
evi d en ce-b a s ed p r a cti ce
gu i d eli n es p r o vi d e th en eces s a r y f o u n d a ti o n
to i m p r o ve th e ef f ecti ven es s
o f s er vi ces to i n d i vi d u a ls
wi th a u ti s m , a n d toen s u r e a cco u n ta b i li ty.
re se a rchers to conclude that theintervention is not effective, may
be harmful, or may lead to unintended consequences. It may be
without scientific evaluation of any
kind.” (Report of the MADSEC
Autism Task Force, p. 3).
MADSEC includes amo ng theirrecommendations that those who
determine or provide autism inter-

ASAT

10

Providing Accurate, Science-Based Information ◆ Promoting Access To Effective Treatment.

SCIENCE IN AUTISM TREATMENT

FALL 1999

ventions “. . .ensure services forc h ildren with autism are based
upon scientifically validated procedures; ensure that services to children with autism include systematic
instruction procedures focusing on
both the acquisition of skills, andthe decrease/elimination of interfering behaviors”; and “re q uireongoing evaluation of autism interventions using contro lled studies
and subject to the rigors of goodscience. Ongoing evaluation should
minimally include a credible methodof evaluation, and criteria for de te rmining whether to terminate or continue the intervention” (Report of the
MADSEC Autism Task Force, p.7).
Autho rs of the New York andMaine reports made it clear that, at
p resent, the recommendations of
their respective panels are notmandato ry standards of practice.
Both panels emphasized, however,that evidence-based practice guidelines provide the necessary foundation to improve the effe c tive ne ssof services to individuals with
autism, and to ensure accountability.

To Or der :The NYSDOH Clinical Prac tice
Guideline: Autism/Pervasive Developmental Disorders. Assessment andIntervention for Young Children (Age
0 - 3 years) actually consists of thre e
documents. These are available as a
set for $21.50, or separately; the cost
includes postage.
The Guideline Technical Reportcontains complete information about
the project, including evidence tables
listing all articles reviewed, a fullreport of the re se arch process, and thefull text of all recommendations ($13).
Repo rt o f the Recommendatio ns
includes bac kground informa tio n ,the full text of all recommendations,and a summary o f the supporting
evidence ($9).

Quick Reference Guide includes
summary background informa tio n ,and a summary of the major recommendations ($7.50).
Call the NY State Department of
Health, Early Intervention Pro gram,
Health Educatio n Services at 518439-7286, or lo g onto http://www.
he alth. state . ny. us/nysdo h/e ip /me nu.
htm.
The Report of the MADSEC Autism
Task Forc e can be purchased bycalling 207-626-3380. Co st is $20,
which includes postage.
REFERENCES
Maine Administrato rs of Services for Childre nwith Disabilities (MADSEC). (1999). Re po rt o f the
MADSEC autism task fo rc e (re vise d e d.).
Manchester, ME: Author.
New York State Department of Health, Early
Intervention Program. (1999). Clinical practiceguide line : The guide line te chnical re p o rt.
Autism/ pe rvasive de ve lo p me ntal disodr e rs ,asse ssme nt and inte rve ntio n fo r yo ung childre n(Age 0-3 Ye ars). Albany, NY: Author.

NIMH Resear ch Roundtable Meeting, Washington, D.C.
Left to right – Ja ne Steinberg, PhD, Acting Director, Division of Extra m ura l Activities, NIMH;
Gina Green, PhD, Director of Resea rch, New Engla nd Center for Children;.Steven Hym a n, MD,
Director, NIMH;Mrs. Joa n Da vin, Acting Executive Director, ASAT; La wrence Lee, MD,ASAT

ASAT

Providing Accurate, Science-Based Information ◆ Promoting Access To Effective Treatment.

11

SCIENCE IN AUTISM TREATMENT

FALL 1999

VIEWPOINT:SENSORY INTEGRATION THERAPY IN AUTISM
By A. Mer vyn Fox

In the 1970s, Jean Ayres pro posed a theory of brain function
emphasizing senso ry integration,and devised the Southern California
Sensory Integration Tests. These
tests were used to evaluate behaviors which Ayres regarded as evidence of vestibular dysfunction. The
vestibular system is theorized tohave a role in “subjective aware ne ssof body position and movement inspace; postural tone and equilibrium; and stabilization of the eyes inspace during head movements”( Fishe r, 1991). Vestibular re c e pto rs
are stimulated by movement of thehead and by gravity. This stimulation
is provided by swinging in net hammocks, and other suspended equipment (Fisher, 1991).
Ayres’ theory needed its own language. Some terms, such as tactile
defensiveness, were new. Others,
such as dyspraxia, vestibular-pro prioceptive dysfunction, perc e p tualdifficulties, and co mmunication
problems were adapted from conventional neurology.
Sensory inte gration disorder isdiagnosed based upon observations
and interpretations of behavioral
a b n o rmalities, as is autism. Ho we ve r, unlike autism, there is noempirical support for the existenceof the disorder independe nt ofAyres’ theory-specific tests. Hence,the diagnosis of sensory integration
diso rder employs circular logic:
without the belief system, there isreally no evidence for the theory.

Ho we ve r, SI practitioners dobase their interventions, upon their
theory. SI devo tee s will attributealmost any undesirable behavior orcharacteristic to sensory integration
fa ilure, and SI interventions arerecommended almost indiscriminately. In the case of motor clumsiness, a number of methodologicallysound studies have failed todemonstrate significant gains after
intensive theory-based interven-

Sen s o r y i n teg r a ti o n
d i s o r d er i s d i a gn o s edb a s ed u p o n o b s er va ti o n s
a n d i n ter p r eta ti o n s o fb eh a vi o r a l a b n o r m a li ti es ,a s i s a u ti s m . Ho wever,u n li k e a u ti s m , th er e i s n o
em p i r i ca l s u p p o r t f o r th eexi s ten ce o f th e d i s o r d er
i n d ep en d en t o f Ayr es ’th eo r y-s p eci f i c tes ts .
tions, including sensory integration(Polatajko, Kaplan & Wilson, 1992).
Some o f Ayres’ speculations
might be borne o ut by care ful
study; but if so, it would not confirm her theory about the effect of
senso ry integration therapy on
brain functio ning. For example,
some behaviors such as headbanging, covering the ears, or highrates of motor activity might serve
to provide a child with autism somestimulation, or they might have acalming effect. Alternative ly, h o we ve r, these behaviors might function to gain attention or to escapesomething the child finds difficult,such as so cial interactions. The
methods of applied behavior analysis, not sensory integration therapy,
enable us to determine the functionsof such behaviors, and to alter thee nvironment appro priate ly.
It may also be important to teacha child with autism to tolerate certain stimuli, such as sounds or thete x tures of certain foods or clothing. But that can be best accomplished using the well-validated
behavioral method of systematicdesensitization, not SIT.
Do children “need” sensory integration? Parents of autistic children
face an almost intolerable dilemma
when professionals suggest that
sensory integration therapy should
be a re q uired part o f the child’s
p ro gram. Parents may no t havebeen offered validated strategies. It
may be suggested to parents thatwitho ut sensory integration therapy, there is little hope their childwill make significant progress.
Does sensory integration therapy
improve the systems of autism, or
somehow rectify the “root cause”
of autism? It is unconscionable fora therapist to suggest that by supp ressing associated behavior theautism is improved; yet such suggestions, often tacit and implicit,
are not infrequently made. Parents

ASAT

12

Providing Accurate, Science-Based Information ◆ Promoting Access To Effective Treatment.

SCIENCE IN AUTISM TREATMENT

of autistic children, and other intervention consumers, have a right tothe same sort of “informed consent” which is mandatory before
taking medication or undergo in gsurgery. Parents must understandthe natural history of the disorderwithout the intervention in question. All therapeutic choices should
be disclosed to parents, as well as
possible side effects. Parents alsoneed to be informed consumers of
research, understanding the weakness of anecdote and the strengthof controlled experiments.
What does the re se arch say about
sensory integration? Early critiquesof SI generally advocated more
re se arch, since favorable studies
we re few and all utilized inadequate
me tho do lo gy. ( O tte nbacke r &Short, 1985; Tickle-Degnen, 1988).
A multi-center combination of two
efficacy studies found SI effects tobe no more effective than other,mo re traditional interventions forlearning disabled children (Kaplan,
Polatajko, Wilson & Faris, 1993). In
a comparison with perc e p tuo motor training, SI therapy was
associated with some gain in motor
planning, but there was no generalization to cognitive or academic
skills, or to self-concept (Humphries,
Wright, Snider & McDougall, 1992).
A recent authoritative review thatcited over 105 studies raised serious doubts about the validity of SI
therapy as a treatment for learningd i s a b l e d c h i l d re n ( Ho e h n &B aume iste r, 1994), and by extension for any other groups diagnosed as having sensory integrative
dysfunction. It concluded that current re se arch may in fact be sufficient to declare SI therapy notme rely unproven, but a demonstrably ineffective primary or adjunctive
remedial treatment for learning disabilities and other disorde rs.

FALL 1999

Despite this overwhelmingly contrary scientific evidence, SI advocatescontinue uncritically to promote thetherapy they provide. A recent popular promotional work which isoften recommended to parents ofmildly autistic children makes nore fe rence to any of the scientific critiques (Kranowitz, 1998).
It is not up to the scientific community to dispro ve SI theory.
Ra th e r, it is up to SI devotees top ro duce convincing e vide nce—if
not for their beliefs, at least for theefficacy of their interventions.
It is not the scientist-clinician’srole to diminish or extinguish hope.
B est clinical practice in autism
combines realism with optimism.

sionals practicing evidence-based
treatment must be highly skeptical of
SI. In addition, individuals re spo nsible for the disbursement of scarce
re so urces should favor an evidence-based approach to decision
making as well.
We need to challenge SI practitioners to offer some evidence of effe ctiveness stronger than their own
opinions or the occasional anecdote.
—A. Me rvyn Fox MB BS FRCPCFRCPCH DCH is Medica l Director of ala rge re gio na l childre n ’s re h a b i li ta tion center in Londo n, On ta rio a nd
a n Associa te Pro fesso r o f Pe d i a tri c s,
Psychia try a nd Occupa tiona l Thera py
a t the Unive rsity of We ste rn Onta ri o .

REFERENCES

I t i s n o t u p to th e s ci en ti f i c
co m m u n i ty to d i s p r o ve SI
th eo r y. R a th er, i t i s u p to
SI d e vo tees to p r o d u ce
co n vi n ci n g evi d en ce—
i f n o t f o r th ei r b eli ef s ,a t lea s t f o r th e ef f i ca cy
o f th ei r i n ter ven ti o n s .
When re so urces are limited (andwhen are they not?) it is ethical top ro vide evidence-based interventions in preference of those dependent only upon belief. Sensory
integration therapy is not always
pleasant fo r the children, and it
may easily take time away fro mproven interventions, which attack
the core symptoms of autism rather
than the non-specific halo of dysfunction generated by the autistic
brain. Lost hopes, lost investments
and lost faith in professionals are
not insignificant side effects.
SI practitioners are well-meaningand have a strong, sincere belief inwhat they do . However, pro fe s-

Fish e r, AG. (1991). Ve s tib ula r- p ro p rio c e p tive
p rocessing and bilateral integration andsequencing deficits. In AG Fisher, EA Murray &AC Bundy (Eds.), Se nso ry inte gratio n the o ry
and p ractice (pp 71-72, and 77). Philadelphia:
FA Davis Company.
Hoehn, T. P. & B aumeister, A.A. (1994). A critique of the application of sensory integration
therapy to children with learning disabilities.
Jo urnal o f Le arning Disab ilitie s 27 (6), 338-350.
Humphrie s, T., Wright, M., Snider, L., andMcDougall, B. (1992). A comparison of sensory
integration therapy and perceptual-motor training in treating children with learning disabilities.

Jo urnal o f De ve lo pme ntal Be havio ral Pe diatrics
13 (1), 31-40.
Kaplan, B .J., Polatajko, H.J., Wilson, B.N. &Fairs, P.D. (1993). Reexamination of se nsory
integration treatment: a combination of two efficacy studies. Jo urnal o f Le arning Disab ilitie s 1
26 (5), 342-347.
Kranowitz, C. (1998). The o ut-o f sync child: re c-o gnizing and co p ing with se nso ry inte gratio n
d y s f u n c ti o n . New Yo rk: Perigee/PenguinPutnam.
O tte nb ac k e r, K. & Sho rt, M.A. (1985). Sensory
integrative dysfunction in children: A review oftheory and treatme nt. Advance s in De ve lo p me ntal and Be havio ral Pe diatrics, 6, 287-329.
Polatajko, H.J., Kaplan, B .J. & Wilson, B .J.
(1992). Sensory integration therapy for children
with learning disabilities: its status twenty years
la te r. The Occupatio nal The rapy Jo urnal o f
Re se arch, 12, 323-341.
Tickle-Degnen, L. (1998). Perspectives on thestatus of sensory integration therapy. T h e

Ame rican Jo urnal o f Occupatio nal The rapy, 42(7), 427-433.

ASAT

Providing Accurate, Science-Based Information ◆ Promoting Access To Effective Treatment.

13

SCIENCE IN AUTISM TREATMENT

FALL 1999

V OI C ES

ASAT

14

Providing Accurate, Science-Based Information ◆ Promoting Access To Effective Treatment.

SAVE

THE

D ATE

Mar ch 9 - 1 0 , 2 0 0 0
Fir st I nter national Confer ence
S cience in Autism Treatment
Mar r iott Mar quis Hotel - New Yor k CityP R E S E N TAT I O N T O P I C S
BRAIN PLASTICITY • PLAY & LEISURE SKILLS • FOOD SELECTIVITY
THEORY OF MIND • PHARMACOLOGY • TOILET TRAINING • DIAGNOSISNEUROIMAGING • IMMUNOLOGY • NATURALIZING LANGUAGE
CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES • ADVOCACY & LEGAL ISSUESCREDENTIALING BEHAVIOR ANALYSTS • UNIVERSITY TRAINING MODELLANGUAGE ASSESSMENT & INTERVENTION • APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS
PEER RELATED PROGRAMMING • COST BENEFIT OF EFFECTIVE TREATMENTGENETICS • SKILL ACQUISITION/BEHAVIOR REDUCTION • FLUENCYINVESTIGATING THE “SOCIAL BRAIN” • AUGMENTATIVE COMMUNICATIONEVIDENCE BASED AUTISM TREATMENTS...and mor e

F E ATURED SPEAKERS SCHEDULED TO APPEAR
William Ahear n, PhD

John Jacobson, PhD

Mar ie Br istol Power , PhD

Shahla Ala’i-Rosales, PhD

Ronald Kallen, MD

Joe Reichle, PhD

Stephen Ander son, PhD

Glenn Latham, PhD

Raymond Romanczyk, PhD

Car l Binder , PhD

Kar in Lifter , PhD

Rober t Schultz, PhD

James Black, MD, PhD

Cather ine Maur ice, PhD

Ger ald Shook, PhD

Debor ah Fein, PhD

William McMahon, MD

Helen Tager -Flusber g, PhD

Richar d Foxx, PhD

James Mulick, PhD

Joanne Ger enser , MA CCC-SLPGeor ge Niemann, PhD

Sigr id Glenn, PhD

James Par tington, PhD

Gina Gr een, PhD

Alan Poling, PhD

Br idget Taylor , PsyD
Rick Tessel, PhD...and mor e

NONPROFIT ORG
US POSTAGE
PAID
PITTSBURGH PA
PERMIT NO
5065

The Association for Science in Autism Treatment
South Hills Medical Building, Suite 201
575 Coal Valley Road
Jefferson Hills, PA 15025

ASSO CI AT I O NFORS CI ENCEIN

AU T I S M T R E AT ME NT