Brannick Schea Fissel
Midwestern University, USA.
Autism. 2025 Oct;29(10):2632-2634. doi: 10.1177/13623613251339006. Epub 2025 Apr 30.
Gestalt Language Development has been proposed as a theoretical foundation for neurodiversity-affirming intervention, yet its adoption remains controversial. Critics cite limited high-quality research as justification for rejecting its use, raising valid concerns about its scientific backing. However, such rejection rests on two assumptions that may lead to risky clinical decisions: (1) that research evidence should be the sole or primary driver of evidence-based practice and (2) that research-backed interventions are inherently neurodiversity-affirming. Using Gestalt Language Development as an example, this letter critiques these assumptions and illustrates how over-reliance on research alone-without integrating clinical expertise and autistic perspectives-can delay meaningful, inclusive care. I argue that centering autistic voices is essential to both neurodiversity-affirming practice and evidence-based decision-making. A more balanced model of evidence-based practice is needed-one that evaluates emerging interventions not only by their research base but also by their alignment with autistic values and their impact in clinical practice.Lay AbstractMany autistic individuals and clinicians find Gestalt Language Development to be a helpful approach for supporting autistic communication. However, some researchers argue that Gestalt Language Development should not be widely used until stronger research evidence is available. This argument introduces two risks. First, it assumes that research is the only kind of evidence that matters-overlooking the value of autistic lived experience and clinical expertise in making good intervention decisions. Second, it assumes that research-based interventions are automatically neurodiversity-affirming, even when they are developed without input from autistic people. This letter argues that excluding autistic voices from intervention decisions is risky. A more balanced approach to evidence-one that includes autistic perspectives, clinical expertise, and research-leads to inclusive, more responsive, and more effective support. While research on Gestalt Language Development is still growing, real-world experiences from autistic people and families offer valuable insight into what works and why it matters.
格式塔语言发展理论已被提议作为神经多样性肯定性干预的理论基础,但其应用仍存在争议。批评者以高质量研究有限为由拒绝使用该理论,对其科学依据提出了合理质疑。然而,这种拒绝基于两个可能导致危险临床决策的假设:(1)研究证据应是循证实践的唯一或主要驱动力;(2)有研究支持的干预本质上就是神经多样性肯定性的。以格式塔语言发展理论为例,本文批判了这些假设,并说明了仅过度依赖研究——而不整合临床专业知识和自闭症患者的观点——如何会延迟有意义的、包容性的护理。我认为,以自闭症患者的声音为中心对于神经多样性肯定性实践和循证决策都至关重要。需要一种更平衡的循证实践模式——一种不仅通过研究基础,还通过其与自闭症价值观的一致性及其在临床实践中的影响来评估新兴干预措施的模式。
许多自闭症患者和临床医生发现格式塔语言发展理论是支持自闭症患者沟通的一种有用方法。然而,一些研究人员认为,在有更有力的研究证据之前,格式塔语言发展理论不应被广泛使用。这种观点带来了两个风险。首先,它假设研究是唯一重要的证据——忽视了自闭症患者的生活经验和临床专业知识在做出良好干预决策中的价值。其次,它假设基于研究的干预措施自动就是神经多样性肯定性的,即使这些措施在没有自闭症患者参与的情况下开发。本文认为,在干预决策中排除自闭症患者的声音是有风险的。一种更平衡的证据方法——包括自闭症患者的观点、临床专业知识和研究——会带来包容性更强、反应更灵敏、更有效的支持。虽然关于格式塔语言发展理论的研究仍在不断发展,但自闭症患者及其家庭的实际经验为哪些方法有效以及为何重要提供了宝贵的见解。