Why Science?

• A definition: science is the process of establishing cause and effect

• Not 100% foolproof• At its best it recognises and

addresses the possibility of error and incompleteness

• A community of communicating practitioners

• The concept of peer-review

Smart people can misread cause and effect:

• Severe sore throat and cough• Patient (US academic) seen at Beijing hospital• Offered choice of treatments:

– Erythromycin– "Chuanbeiye," with the chief ingredients listed as "snake

bile, tendril-leafed fritillary bulb, and almond, etc."

• Patient chose erythromycin despite assurances from translator that Chuanbeiye always worked for her.

• Patient got better, continued to put his faith in antiobiotics over traditional Chinese medicine.

What’s wrong with above picture?

• Majority of respiratory complaints like that described by the author are viral, not bacteriological

• Neither treatment was likely to work• Moral: skeptical scientific minds,

with incomplete information, can get it wrong, too.

What should we look for?

• Instructional techniques and programs that correspond with established understanding of FASD

• Assessment of effects that actually measure what is being addressed.

• Duration and applicability of effect (not just the result of cramming a bunch of information)

What should we look for? (2)

• If a program claims to be supported by research, check that research and desired effect match.

• If “analog skills” are addressed, look for research that they have direct bearing on disability.– Real analog skill for reading: phonological

processing– Unsubstantiated analog skill: eye movement

• Program tested by independent research, and replicated.

A little more about peer review

• Good science assumes possibilities of error, bias, statistical fumbles, contamination of effect, etc. etc.

• Findings, even if apparently very compelling, must be subjected to peer review before submitted to media. (e.g. “cold fusion”)

• Even with peer review, one study doth not a conclusion make.

DO NOT MAKE MAJOR LIFE DECISIONS ON THE BASIS OF

THE FINDINGS OF ONE STUDY!!!!

Testimonials

• 1. Authorities: – Really smart people: Jarvik– Celebrities: Oprah– Moral Authorities: Floyd Redcrow

Westerman (?!)

• 2. People just like you…– really?– In what respects?

Testimonials:

• Consider the logic:• How many testimonials would it take to

show effectiveness?– What can you infer from number of testimonial

regarding the ratio of successes to failures– What worked?

• Can the described effect be compared to that of other approaches?

• Consider the single-case phenomenon.– My “argument from Tylenol…”

Science is only part of the picture.

• What else do you need to think about if the program you’re looking at is supported by legitimate research evidence?

Does it really match your child’s needs?

• Beware the program that fixes: “Autism, LD, NLD, FASD, and ADHD, and CP.”– How do you know what your child’s

problem is?– Assessment (not baseline, but

diagnostic) should be independent of organisation offering treatment.

IF IT SOUNDS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE,

…

IT PROBABLY IS.