Leaf Justin B, Kassardjian Alyne, Oppenheim-Leaf Misty L, Cihon Joseph H, Taubman Mitchell, Leaf Ronald, McEachin John
Autism Partnership Foundation, 200 Marina Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90740 USA.
Behavior Therapy and Learning Center, 200 Marina Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90740 USA.
Behav Anal Pract. 2016 Jan 26;9(2):152-7. doi: 10.1007/s40617-016-0108-1. eCollection 2016 Jun.
Today, there are several interventions that can be implemented with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Most of these interventions have limited to no empirical evidence demonstrating their effectiveness, yet they are widely implemented in home, school, university, and community settings. In 1996, Green wrote a chapter in which she outlined three levels of science: evidence science, pseudoscience, and antiscience; professionals were encouraged to implement and recommend only those procedures that would be considered evidence science. Today, an intervention that is commonly implemented with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder is Social Thinking®. This intervention has been utilized by behaviorists and non-behaviorists. This commentary will outline Social Thinking® and provide evidence that the procedure, at the current time, qualifies as a pseudoscience and, therefore, should not be implemented with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, especially given the availability of alternatives which clearly meet the standard of evidence science.
如今,有多种干预措施可用于被诊断患有自闭症谱系障碍的个体。其中大多数干预措施仅有有限的实证证据或根本没有证据证明其有效性,但它们仍在家庭、学校、大学和社区环境中广泛应用。1996年,格林撰写了一章内容,其中概述了三个科学层次:证据科学、伪科学和反科学;鼓励专业人员仅实施和推荐那些被视为证据科学的程序。如今,一种常用于被诊断患有自闭症谱系障碍个体的干预措施是“社会思维”(Social Thinking®)。行为主义者和非行为主义者都采用了这种干预措施。本评论将概述“社会思维”,并提供证据表明,目前该程序符合伪科学的特征,因此,不应将其用于被诊断患有自闭症谱系障碍的个体,特别是考虑到有其他明显符合证据科学标准的替代方法。