This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Choosing" not to be autistic certainly won't magically make appear the two missing brain structures shown to be missing or altered in autism or make autistics think about people in the same area of the brain that non-autistic people use.
I believe that autistic behaviors are a way for children with challenges to take care of themselves. The cases where autistic behaviors are reduced (or in rare cases, complete recovery) are similar to the cases where stroke victims regain some or all of their functions. On Wikipedia under "Stroke recovery" it says "The initial severity of impairments and individual characteristics, such as motivation, social support, and learning ability, are key predictors of stroke recovery outcomes." In a similar way, you could say that children can choose to become non-autistic, but this is rare, and the best results are in a non-pressuring environment, where the patient is encouraged to develop a strong internal motivation. Hence the benefit of a program such as Son-Rise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfKevinT ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes overtime, the autistic child can gain trust and eventually look up and smile at you. Basically, Son-Rise does not use force. So, when the child is ready, (s)he will eventually want to learn the skills, and get out of their "private world." But I don't like saying, "choosing not to-be autistic." I think the wording should be changed in the article. AnnieTigerChucky ( talk) 17:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I see that this article has been marked for "point of view" review. I'm largely responsible for its current revision (as of March 5, 2005), so I would be interested in hearing specific suggestions on how it might be edited to make the point of view more neutral.
Much of the text of the article I moved here from the Autism article. While I kept as much of the original text intact as I could out of respect for the previous author, I did excise or replace some words that struck me as a bit loaded with POV (e.g., changing "polemic" to "book"). On the other hand, a left intact several "scare quotes" (e.g., "real child", "triumph over autism") that might be interpreted as derisive. Is that the POV you find objectionable?
I tried to avoid wading into any of the disputes about whether or not Son-Rise is a cult, whether or not it promotes child abuse, and whether or not it is effective. I don't think statements either way on such questions can exist in an article that is supposed to have a "neutral point of view." In deference to the controversy over whether Raun was really autistic, I left intact the previous author's words "apparently" and "claim" in the History section, and I've modifed the text in the first paragraph to remove any POV about that either.
Although I have some knowledge about and a little experience with Son-Rise (did their 5-day start-up program), and therefore have a POV, I took pains to try to avoid injecting my own opinions, which I would be more than happy to share here on the discussion board (hint: we chose not to pursue Son-Rise).
I'm aware that Son-Rise provokes strong opinions on both sides, and that it would be difficult if not impossible to write an article about it that everyone agrees is unbiased, but it's worth trying.
If there are factual errors in the article, please fix them or point them out.
Thanks,
John
I've moved a few additions to the article into the discussion below, with my comments.
"Similar programs exist which eliminate the huge price tag, the unrealistic claims, and the hard sell approach. As always, parents should investigate thoroughly before investing their child and their money."
While I'm personally inclined to agree with much of this, it is not a neutral point of view. Its clear intent is to persuade the reader not to pursue Son-Rise. Same goes for the comment about Raun Kaufman being an "unpleasant young man".
Please, let's limit the article to facts, and keep the opinions in the discussion.
"Since many forms of autism are rooted in neurological hardwiring or biochemical differences, it might not be reasonable to expect such a program to produce a completely 'normal' child."
This is an argument about the effectiveness of the program, which is important to engage in, but as there has been no scientific study of Son-Rise, opinions really belong in the discussion.
"Perhaps the best that such a child could arrive at through Options is the ability to imitate so-called normal behavior."
This statement is more descriptive of therapist-directed inteventions like ABA. Like DIR, Son-Rise is largely child-directed. As such, imitating normal behavior is neither a goal nor a likely point of arrival. Indeed, there's a lot more parent imitating the child going on than the other way around. Jfinlayson 07:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Someone copied a reference from this article into the body of the autism article, with accompanying polemic and another anti-cult link ( http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/o/option/oi_statements.htm).
I've explained above why I think such argument belongs here, not there. If someone has a different opinion about where such discussion belongs, let's hear the argument for that. I'm open to persuasion.
Son-Rise is a relatively small, alternative program. There are a many more mainstream therapeutic interventions that deserve more attention in that Autism article. I wrote a section for RDI, because that's the program I'm most familiar with. I'd like to see more sections written by people with more knowledge about other programs.
In the meantime, if someone is on a campaign to discourage people from pursuing Son-Rise for whatever reason, that's fine, but I would suggest that a more effective approach would be to constructively provide some descriptions of more promising alternatives.
John Finlayson-Fife 22:36, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I've made some edits to this article after attending training for my own son, and have reviewed several of the prior listings as well. I can certainly state that the atmosphere and the training is not "cult-like", though many of the trainers and therapists obviously feel passionatel about their work, and believe in what they are doing. As for the cost, one can go online and find computer programs, therapists, and etc. that certainly cost as much if not more than the Son-Rise program costs. If one were to sum up the approach, it would be "advanced common sense", in that they take very specific techniques that make sense after reviewing them, which a frustrated, disappointed and angry parent might well not even consider to apply.
This change introduced two paragraphs about free lectures that appear to be a personal report. Unfortunately this counts as original research and as such should not appear in Wikipedia. I asked for citations but none have been forthcoming, so I removed the paragraphs. Eubulides 06:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a difficult point. I understand the need for only factual content in wiki, however in cases like this because the Son-Rise program is not supported by any evidence the whole topic becomes contentious. The very first line: Son-Rise is a treatment program for autism is not supported by ANY evidence and in my opinion is untrue. But this is allowed to remain. My criticism was based on my personal experience of attending a recent free lecture in London. As such there is no published article I can cite, however I have worked extensively with Autistic children running day centres, worked as a teacher, studied psychology at degree level and worked within clinical neurophysiology research at London hospitals at Masters Degree level. I felt compelled to add my part as the treatment is very obviously not a 'cure' for the very wide and very different abnormalities seen in AST. The general techniques employed will almost certainly help SOME children on the autistic spectrum disorder, as any child would benefit from intensive tuition. However, the talk greatly exaggerates the potential of the treatment, and bearing in mind the audience is made up of desperate parents, this is highly irresponsible. I hope this is the correct section in wiki for opinions, as it is necessary to be able to give opinions concerning topics such as this. In the meantime I will work on a report for the main page that can be re-worded. Thanks, Jackboy 29
How many people who have edited and expressed opinions on this program have run a program for a period of time? or Attended any of the courses or other autism treatment/early behavioural programs? what I find most amusing. Is that with such a diverse population, one program will not be universally greeted in a positive or negative way, it is impossible!. We do not agree on many different issues (politics/religon/fashion/healthcare etc..). If you take onboard the programs goals and it suits your parenting style then it can be a successful tool in helping your Autistic child. I also believe that parents running different programs will and have had success with their own children.If you do not believe in the program then you will lose the energy and enthusiasm to continue with it. I have run a program for a few years and have personally seen great improvments in a lot of areas with my child (I know this is only my POV). Whether or not my child would have had similar, better or worse achievements doing nothing or in another program, no-one can say. All the autistic children I know through the sonm-rise/options approach have progressed at some level. Some make huge progress others make small progress, the spectrum of success also only rates what individual goals different people are aiming at. I have attended the Start-up, Max-Impact, New-frontiers and the Family Intensive week long courses and have a good knowledge of the program. I have also looked at (briefly, not attended any of their courses) TEACHH, Lovaas, RDI, ABA, Growing minds etc... so I know their is a lot of choice out there for people to choose from. Some of the other programs have similarities with aspects of son-rise and some are total opposites. You then have the add ons that can be run along side program like tinted glasses, AIT, Dieting, Vitamins B12, Chelation and Natural oils and local honey......I still think (POV Again!!) that this is the most beneficial for us, as a family (Me, my wife, daughter and autistic son). Just to quickly clear up the expense of attending all the above courses for me and my wife, £0. The fabulous Caudwell charity funded all the week long courses in the UK, thanks to a partnership between them and the son-rise staff. We then used the fundraising pack from Autism treatment center of America, along with a scholarship from the ATCOA and we attended the family intensive week at the institute in USA. We learnt a great deal and saw impressive improvements in our son over the 5 days. From a Happy Son-Rise, DAD (B.Davies) Sorry! for it being a long post:) I just wanted to put my positive and truthful account of running this program, as a lot of people seem to knock it on this page?. I have also met Raun on a number of occasions and I can confirm that he is a genuinely, nice and generous person. Not as this post states( Raun Kaufman being an "unpleasant young man".) One last thing from critisms. The ATCOA is currently having a independant study of Son-Rise by the Lancaster University in UK and I believe I heard a similar study involving an American University (unconfirmed). The sentence about more drawbacks in running a son-rise program. How comes to read it costs 39.00 dollars for a month? also this goes against all the parents I know, have spoken to and keep in touch with. Try reading the messageboard on the son-rise website for FREE and get a FREE 25 min consultation call back with no obligation. Once again it all comes down to the individual and his/her experience of program. User:62.6.149.17 16th December 2007
Bruh.... You are forcing your own beliefs on your kid. Your love is great but misguided. Your kid knows that life is meaningless and we are all going to die, so just do what you like......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bombeen ( talk • contribs) 08:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for offering to help, really appriciate that. The below like works with regard to the article previously mentioned.
This is a link to the Son Rise sight listing lots of other articles showing parent sucess.
So just to help me make sure I am clear. I think we both agree that press stories and Documentaries are relavant. So i am hoping you will help me understand how to place them. To me this is fact obsurvations not POV?
Warm regards, Ezrah
Sandy,
I do believe this link is active, maybe I logged the edit incorrectly. I am very new to making contributions so please help me out. Also as I read the guidelines the introduction should be representative of the subject. The Son-Rise program has lots of anecdotal evidence of success and that seems to be worthy of the introduction.
I also added a BBC documentary post that was removed, because of no sighting but its featured and distributed by the people at Son-Rise. I am new to Wikipeidia and trying to contribute in the most productive way I can so I am open to input from you. I looked for a reference or pub date but could not find one. I have the documentary and again its distributed widely by Son-Rise so what is the nest way for something like this to be represented in the article?
Warm regards, Ezrah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrah 001 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed on Autism Treatment Center not being a independant source, but ther sight has several articles from sources that are. I will very much look forward to reading your thoughts once you have a chance to read these submissions. Thank you again, I am very new to this process and trhing to read and learn how to contribute in this type of forum. regards, Ezrah 001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrah 001 ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
There are currently studies that have started to study the program, so once I have that information I will share that. I have also requested copies of Studies already sighted so that more content from them can be included. The BBC did an actual documentary on a family tracing them long term is there a place in the article for that once I get the proper reference information on it? This is also in the category of investigative journalism not just reporting a story. Also since studies are in progress but not completed, information forth coming, and studies are cited, taking out that Son rise is some how resistant to being studied seems to be not accurate.
Regards, Ezrah 001 ( talk) 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Sandy,
The citing around costs of the program seems out of date. This is what I see on the sight referenced. It is very difficult to find out the costs of the different programs as it is not something readily advertised on their website. However, the estimates of the courses are as follow:
$1,995 for the Start-Up Program in the USA $2,385 for the Start-Up Program in the UK $11,500 for the Intensive Program $1,995 for the Maximum Impact Program in the USA $2,385 for the Maximum Impact Program in the UK Phone consultation $550 (50 minutes) though this can vary greatly depending on the professional you talk to. (This information is not correct, consultation prices range from $100 - $260, I know as a client that has used these services) The Institute can also provide information and possibly help to families in regards to financial assistance and fundraising (Kaufman, S. 1998).
Please also consider the organization is a Non Profit and they often offer substancial scholarships. I know in my own experience I could not afford the services on my own so I was given very generous scholarships. So I feel having only the quote that "The National Autistic Society points out the high cost of the program" is not refelctive of all information provided from what must me a credible sources since they are used in the article. So again I am at a loss as to how to best include this in the article. Ezrah 001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrah 001 ( talk • contribs) 01:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, the numbers are on the National Autism web sight. These fees include meals, housing and 5 days of training. Having looked into RDI for example there 2 day workshops were more money than this. So I dont think they are expensive conparitively. I will look for citable material on comparable training programs and costs. But the more important point I think is that the organization is a Non profit that offers scholarships to those in need so they can acess the programs.
This is what the National Autistic society says on the subject. "The Institute can also provide information and possibly help to families in regards to financial assistance and fundraising (Kaufman, S. 1998). There is information on specific UK funding at: www.autismtreatmentcenter.org/ contents/other_sections/uk_funding_available.php. The Options Institute has also written a fundraising pack which has suggestions of how to raise funds locally. You can download the pack from their website at: www.autismtreatmentcenter.org/contents/files/frguide.pdf."
So having that the program is expensive without information on scholarships or there non profit status seems to give a less than accurate presentation of information.
Warm regards, Ezrah 001 ( talk) 01:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sandy,
I have some new information and a proposed change. I suggest removed the Comment from the National Autism society "The National Autistic Society points out the high cost of the program"
I propose adding a section on costs with this content. Costs The Autism Treatment Center of America is a non profit; this allows them to offer scholarships (Sight The National Autistic Society). The first years costs of Son Rise training would be $5985 (Sandy this is for Start Up, Max Impact and New frontiers this is the training they recommend in the first year) (sight The National Autistic Society and Son Rise web sight) This is low compared to costs of other programs, "Ganz broke down the total costs…behavioral therapies (estimated to cost, on average, more than $29,000 per person per year)". (sighting information, Todd Datz, tdatz@hsph.harvard.edu, (617) 432-3952, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2006-releases/press04252006.html )
I would welcome your feedback and thoughts on this information. As a client of Son Rise I can tell you this program is much less expensive than other programs. As a results of attend all three training classes listed I can tell you I have never meet a person that is paying more to do there Son Rise program than any other. Lots of my fellow students have done other programs or looked into them and this information is consistent with my experience. Its much less expensive to do Son Rise than any other, SO I would very much like to correct this error on the article.
Warm regards, Ezrah 001 ( talk) 12:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sandy I get all that but I feel its presented as a fact when it is not. I am going to put some facts into play in the article regarding costs.
Thank you Ezrah 001 ( talk) 15:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysource=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)The text you inserted includes original research and synthesis not supported by the cite given (comparison of costs), [3] introduces an unnecessary section heading, and needs to be copyedited. Something like this might be acceptable, but is still bordering on synthesis by comparing overall costs of other autism programs to Son-Rise, which doesn't encompass the treatment covered in the Harvard figures:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been seeking information on procing of programs and have a request into Autims speaks for such information. I am hoping this will bring better results.
I hope at this point we can all agree that Son Rise is not unusually expensive. With regard to stories, I think people that are fund raising tend to do stories on the program. I also think they are fund raising for long term program costs. All I can tell you is my experience is like what I lised above and will continue to research sources on costs. This seems like a incorrect fact that seems to be perpetuated by speculation like from articles like you mention. If we are going to have information on costs, lets do it based on fact not what others have fund raised in the name of doing a Son Rise program.
So for now I would like to see the removal of the coment that the program is expensive and as soon as I have information will keep submitting it.
Warm regards,
Ezrah 001 ( talk) 16:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I respectfully disagree. This same source lists the costs of the program clearly and other references show that other therapies are more expensive than Son Rise. http://www.fightingautism.org/clock/
What is meant by U.S. Annual Economic Cost? while the annual cost of education of a child with autism is estimated at $40,000. Typically a child with autism requires specialized medical treatment, which is an additional expense. Therefore, $30,000 per child with autism is an under estimate. Some parents report spending $65,000 per year.
________________________________________________________
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2006-releases/press04252006.html
Contact: Todd Datz tdatz@hsph.harvard.edu (617) 432-3952 Harvard School of Public Health 677 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115
Ganz broke down the total costs…behavioral therapies (estimated to cost, on average, more than $29,000 per person per year) and direct non-medical costs, such as special education, camps, and child care (estimated to annually cost more than $38,000 for those with lower levels of disability and more than $43,000 for those with higher levels).
The same sighting also source also says, The Institute can also provide information and possibly help to families in regards to financial assistance
The same sight has a pros sestion but you all have only included excerpts from the cons section. One of the biggest advantages reported by parents doing the Program is the amount of productive and positive time they can spend with their child (Jordan and Powell 1993). Williams (2004) carried out a survey on parents doing the Program, and many noted that the family generally felt more positive and interaction amongst the whole family had improved since doing the Program (Williams 2004). The Program shares a number of features with other autism-specific programs, particularly the environmental and sensory impact and the need to develop empathy for the way the child sees the world. However, possibly the most striking feature of the Program, is the huge amount of one-to-one intervention the child can receive on a daily basis. There is research to support that such huge levels of intensive interaction can encourage development in the child, though this is not specifically in regards to Son-Rise (Jordan and Powell 1993).
Why is non of the above in the article? I am hoping to help create more balances article. I will seek the help of a Wipedia mentor to help with this. In the mean time I would appreciate your helping balance the article. When I read this there is much that I simply don't recognise as the program and services I personally know. The reality is a far cry from what is on this sight from my perspective.
Warm regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrah 001 ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The Harvard press release talks about Ganz 2007, but that doesn't mention Son-Rise either, so I'm not sure how it would be relevant. Here's the full citation: Ganz ML (2007). "The lifetime distribution of the incremental societal costs of autism". Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 161 (4): 343–9. PMID 17404130. Lay summary – Harvard School of Public Health (2006-04-25). I found one not-that-reliable source saying that Son-Rise costs ₤10,000/year in Britain.[2] I found no high-quality work on the relative costs of programs. Eubulides (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the quote that I felt was realvant, Ganz broke down the total costs…behavioral therapies (estimated to cost, on average, more than $29,000 per person per year) Ezrah 001 ( talk) 16:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
In looking through the above comments and at the text, I see the following points:
Draft replacement starts here.
This article needs additional citations for
verification. (March 2008) |
At the Autism Treatment Center of America, parents are given training to help them encourage their child to interact and socialize more effectively. The acquisition of developmental skills plays an important role in the program, however the priority in a Son-Rise Program is encouraging socialization and communication abilities. While there are other programs that emphasize a play-based therapy, such as Dr. Stanley Greenspan's DIR/ Floortime model, one of the distinguishing features of Son-Rise is its emphasis on loving and accepting the child just as he or she is, with the idea that the autistic child "senses" your attitude through your voice, body language and non-verbal behavior.
The Son-Rise philosophy states that if you approach the child with a positive, loving attitude, the child is more likely to interact than if you engage with a sense of underlying anger, despair, hopelessness and desperation. The idea is based upon the belief that any child, even an autistic child, is more likely to thrive by means of interaction and play with others who are having fun with the child and enjoying what the child enjoys. As the child engages with parent or caregiver, a constant attempt is made to expand the child's interest beyond " self-stimulating" behaviors.
Many parents struggle to accept their child's diagnosis and the unique behaviors of autism. It is not uncommon for parents to experience guilt or fears for the future. Son-Rise says that, by offering parents support in these areas, parents are able to attain a greater degree of comfort playing with their child and in their day-to-day life with their child. They say this attitude, combined with specific play strategies, gives parents a greater opportunity to encourage more of the type of interactions that they wish to create with their child.
Son-Rise is volunteer-intensive with high turnover, and may require parents to fill in staffing gaps. [1]
Son-Rise has never allowed formal scientific evaluations of effectiveness. [1] Questions have been raised whether Raun Kaufman was actually autistic before being treated. [2] There are no documented normalizations with older children, and it may be that success "depends on a certain level of intellectual potential". [3] Some professionals have questioned the emphasis placed on eye contact and its potential aversiveness for some children. [1]
The consensus within the medical community is that there is no cure for autism and only a very few treatments have empirical evidence for improvements in symptoms. [2] [4] A 2003 study found that involvement with the Son-Rise Program led to more drawbacks than benefits for the involved families over time, although family stress levels did not rise in all cases. [5] A 2006 study found that the Son-Rise Program is not always implemented as it is typically described in the literature, which suggests it will be difficult to evaluate its efficacy. [6]
Draft replacement ends here.
Looks good, agree with all, have never liked citing NAS and don't like the quality of those sources; sorry I can't help much, but Ima Hogg will keep me busy for April Fools Day. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Eubulides, and Sandy. Son Rise has had a new book published on treatment and has a Developmental model on its web sight that is the most up to date on the subject. Would http://www.optionindigo.com/product.aspx?68 and http://www.autismtreatmentcenter.org/contents/other_sections/developmental_model.php be considered a source that meets teh standards Verifiability, Reliable sources I agree lets in some ways start fresh. Sandy I do belive you are looking to hold the article to a standard if you will. I am goign to take a few days and gather what I feel is the most up to date information and then get some consensous and then move ahead from there.
Warm regards, Ezrah 001 ( talk) 23:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I propose deleting this, http://www.autismtreatmentcenter.org/cgi-local/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=36&topic=2 this is just one study that is currently being done and since the information is on there web sight they must be not only allowing research but helping facilitate it. Ezrah 001 ( talk) 12:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi all! I just wanted to add a couple quick notes, since I've read the full text of a couple of the cited studies/books. In Williams/Wishart (2003), under Methods, it states "Three separate questionnaires were sent out over a one-year period to families who had attended an initial SRP 'start-up' group training course in the UK in 1998...Questionnaire 1 was sent to all course participants..." This would clearly indicate the authors were given access by that program to its clients for the purposes of the study, contradicting the cited statement from the NAS website.
Also, even though it was mainly directed at impact on the family, the same study produced the following data: when asked "Overall, how beneficial would you say Son-Rise has been for your child?" the participants responded "16 felt that the programme had been very effective, eight moderately, seven slightly and none (reported) not at all effective".
Okay, and I think I've figured out how citing works, to a degree. So the Herbert/Sharp/Guadiano (2002) then refers to Siegel (1996) for the part about questioning if this person was actually autistic. My question is: Siegel is the original source, and her book was published by a reputable publishing house, but her statements are clearly biased against "Options" as she calls it, such as "This therapy makes little sense developmentally", then she goes on to inaccurately describe the methodology. In fact, her book takes a somewhat snide, attacking stance against anything she considers "non-mainstream". Under these conditions, can this still be considered a "reliable source"?
Anyway, that's what I came across. If you find this useful and someone wants to take a stab at updating the wording, be my guest, since I'm not sure when I will have the time to propose wording myself. Hope I did this correctly, feel free to let me know what I could have done better! Sdscreenwriter ( talk) 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Greetings. I have read the Williams studies as well and have copies of the 2003 and 2006 papers. The 2006 paper is titled: "The Son-Rise Program® intervention for autism: Prerequisites for evaluation" and is most certainly research designed to help evaluate the effectiveness of the program. While the study itself is not testing the effectiveness of the son rise program, it is the first step in the process of that research, determining the challenges and prerequisites for any further evaluation. These Williams papers will be cited for sure in any subsequent study of the son rise program.
The paper itself recognizes this is its purpose:
The study described below aimed to identify the profile of children and families involved in the SRP, to establish the typical patterns in intervention use (plus any changes in these over time), and to explore the extent to which low treatment fidelity, concurrent intervention use and concurrent school attendance were likely to present methodological challenges to any future evaluation of the efficacy of the SRP as an intervention for autism. -Autism 10(1) pg 89
It is the first step in the evaluation process and it makes perfect sense that the son rise people would first want to make sure there was an adequate understanding of the challenges facing any studies of the effectiveness of their program.
As such, I think their facilitation of Dr. Williams studies over the course of at least 3 years (2003-2006) clearly refutes the NAS unsourced claim on their website. TacoChuck ( talk) 21:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Good to have some additional contributors. I would also like to note that the quote given is only the first half of the statement. The full statement is “Drawbacks were reported more often than benefits at both time-points. However, it is worth noting that some of the families reporting drawbacks indicated either that these were not severe or that they were implementing the programme in a way which minimized disruption to family life.” Other relevant comments include, “Neither stress nor happiness levels were significantly correlated, positively or negatively, with personal hours of involvement in programme delivery, total hours or duration of intervention. However, increased happiness was related to holding meetings for volunteer helpers” Volunteer meeting is a core part of what I was trained to do as client. So if you are not conducting volunteer meetings you are not running a program as prescribed if you will. I would like the quote amended to be more representative of the findings. I propose we add in the “However, it is worth noting that some of the families reporting drawbacks indicated either that these were not severe or that they were implementing the programme in a way which minimized disruption to family life” Any thoughts? Ezrah 001 ( talk) 21:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
1 if we are to use summary information only how about we draw from the conclusing section of the 2003 study which says. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present study emphasize the need for those supporting families using home-based interventions to consider the needs of the whole family. This may be especially important if there are periods during which the family find the intervention to be less effective. Families embarking on such intensive approaches may also benefit from considering ways in which any disruption to family life can be minimized. 2 I would agree that digging into an article to find contradicting statements seem less than useful. I would also say the researcher says himself that is it "However, it is worth noting that some of the families reporting drawbacks indicated either that these were not severe or that they were implementing the programme in a way which minimized disruption to family life.” These are his words "worthy or noting" not mine. So I do not feel this is digging for contradictory information. 3 This is what Wipedia says about NAS "The National Autistic Society (NAS) is the United Kingdom's most prominent autism-related charity. It states that it exists to champion the rights and interests of all people with autism and to ensure that they and their families receive quality services appropriate to their needs. The NAS launched a "Make School Make Sense" campaign in May 2006 at the Houses of Parliament, with speakers including Jane Asher (who is also president of the charity and takes an active role in its running) and Joshua Muggleton, a speaker and writer on autistic spectrum disorders, disability, and education.
The NAS has a mixed reception among the UK aspergers community. Some feel their work is good, other feel that they cling to old methods and care more about the society than the people they set out to aim." So clearly there are some that question there information assuming we take Wikipedia as a reliable source. Ezrah 001 ( talk) 00:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Eubulides, I took information from the research that was the sample that was farther along in the study the researcher felt that was more statistically relevant so that is what I sampled. My motivation is to create accuracy and find common ground, which I think, is a shared interest between the two of us. So let me confirm common ground. The study primary intent was not around effectiveness but it is in the effectiveness section as well as above in the main article. I question the need for duplication. I would suggest deleting this second reference or add the one question that was asked around effectiveness, since the study findings are in the effectiveness section of the article. "Overall how beneficial would you say Son-Rise has been for your child?’, and requested to tick ‘not at all’, ‘slightly’, ‘moderately’ or ‘very’. Out of the 31 responses to this question, 16 felt that the programme had been very effective, eight moderately, seven slightly and none not at all effective." Again in an effort to establish common ground if I read this correctly 100% of the respondents felt the program was beneficial for there children or the majority (51%) felt it was very effective. I would welcome thoughts on this and suggested edits from anyone. Ezrah 001 ( talk) 22:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it was mentioned above that while the NAS site is referenced several times for critical items, there is no reference to the site for any of the positive items. Since there is no positive content in the entire "Effectiveness" section, I propose the following addition that section:
Although no research currently exists formally evaluating the effectiveness of the Son-Rise Program, the program does involved a very large amount of one-on-one interaction with the child and there is research to show that large amounts of intensive interaction with an Autistic child can have positive impacts. Other research specifically on the Son-Rise program found that the participating families felt more positive overall and that interactions among the family as a whole had improved while using the Son-Rise program.
All sourced to the NAS page about Son-Rise. TacoChuck ( talk) 14:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)I suggest the below as a replacement for the "Effectiveness" section. It adds only 2 pieces of information from NAS website source. Eubulides asked me to propose the additions in context of the whole section so I have reorganized the section and added the two items in.
I reorganized the whole section to hopefully increase readability and group related items more closely.
I don't agree with the inclusion of most of the items in the section and my including them here can not be viewed as my endorsement of them as being appropriate. I have left every item intact except for a few very tiny changes required for the reorganization to read properly.
I also don't know how to display the footnotes in this suggested replacement so they could be checked to make sure they are pointing to the proper places, although I changed none intentionally and only added ref tags name=NAS to the two facts I added into the section as that was their source for me. TacoChuck ( talk) 20:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Draft replacement starts here.
The consensus within the medical community is that there is no cure for autism and only a very few treatments have empirical evidence for improvements in symptoms. [1] [2] Son-Rise has never allowed formal scientific evaluations of effectiveness. [3] A 2006 study found that the Son-Rise Program is not always implemented as it is typically described in the literature, which suggests it will be difficult to evaluate its efficacy. [4]
The program's huge amount of one-on-one interaction with the child can encourage the child's development, according to research that is not specific to Son-Rise.
[3] A 2003 study found that involvement with the Son-Rise Program led to more drawbacks than benefits for the involved families over time, although family stress levels did not rise in all cases.
[5] A subsequent analysis by the same researcher found that overall the participating families felt more positive and that interactions among the family as a whole had improved while using the Son-Rise program.
[3]
The program presents no documented normalizations with older children, and it may be that its success "depends on a certain level of intellectual potential". [6] Questions have been raised whether Raun Kaufman was actually autistic before being treated. [1] Some professionals have questioned the emphasis placed on eye contact and its potential aversiveness for some children. [3]
Draft replacement ends here.
Thanks. I edited the above draft as follows:
There's still a real problem with the draft though, which I've indicated by striking out the sentence involved. The sentence is:
Here are some problems with this sentence:
Eubulides ( talk) 22:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Program intervention, as hypothesized, leads to an increase in social orienting and joint attention skills in children with autism. Continued analysis is underway.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)This series of edits inserted a lot of changes, all unsourced. For now, I'm reverting them; please add sources for claims like that. I see a fact tag in the article, which suggests that some of the claims now in the article should be removed; I'll take a look at that next. Eubulides ( talk) 04:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The following two lines are in the article summary at the top, and then are repeated in the effectiveness section.
"A 2003 study found that involvement with the program led to more drawbacks than benefits for the involved families over time,[2] and a 2006 study found that the program is not always implemented as it is typically described in the literature, which suggests it will be difficult to evaluate its efficacy."
It seems to me that repeating these two lines overemphasizes what is actually a healthy scientific skepticism about the program, and in overemphasizing it, actually detracts from the power of that healthy skepticism.
Is there any way to have these two lines in one spot or the other in the article, but not in both? I think this would improve the article.
Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminady ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
207.75.81.12 ( talk) 19:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121026125021.htm
This study done by UCDavis MIND Institute seems to vindicate this early intervention therapy. The comments in this talk section refer to the fact that the autistic brain lacks areas non-autistic children have. It has been clear for some time now that epigenetic tagging alters responses within a human-response time frame. Lamarkian inheritance is correct. It is entirely possible that this one-on-one 24-7 therapy erases a 'turned on' tag. Admittedly it is a herculean task to perfom this intensive therapy,and success should not be minimized. I disagree with the description that 'this type of therapy has not been performed before.' Outside manistream successes should be recognized and not minimized for this heart-breaking condition.
Went through reference [5] [1] but could not find anywhere the what editior claim is being said in this article, i.e. "While five clinics throughout New York State described the boy as "socially withdrawn and uncommunicative" in the 1970s, only one clinic confirmed the diagnosis of autism". Only the first part of statement i.e. " Questions have been raised whether Raun Kaufman was actually autistic before being treated. " exists in reference. Could be that this is taken from the reference of the refernce i.e. from Siegle Bryan's book: Siegel, B. (1996). The world of the autistic child: Understanding and treating autistic spectrum disorders. New York: Oxford University Press.
[10] gives some more on the statements of Siegle Bryan's claim. Naber78 ( talk) 07:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The singular description of "Autism" is too vague to describe adequately what the subject is about. The updated description of "Autism-related organizations in the United States" helps define the subject well. 174.23.171.229 ( talk) 12:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Choosing" not to be autistic certainly won't magically make appear the two missing brain structures shown to be missing or altered in autism or make autistics think about people in the same area of the brain that non-autistic people use.
I believe that autistic behaviors are a way for children with challenges to take care of themselves. The cases where autistic behaviors are reduced (or in rare cases, complete recovery) are similar to the cases where stroke victims regain some or all of their functions. On Wikipedia under "Stroke recovery" it says "The initial severity of impairments and individual characteristics, such as motivation, social support, and learning ability, are key predictors of stroke recovery outcomes." In a similar way, you could say that children can choose to become non-autistic, but this is rare, and the best results are in a non-pressuring environment, where the patient is encouraged to develop a strong internal motivation. Hence the benefit of a program such as Son-Rise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfKevinT ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes overtime, the autistic child can gain trust and eventually look up and smile at you. Basically, Son-Rise does not use force. So, when the child is ready, (s)he will eventually want to learn the skills, and get out of their "private world." But I don't like saying, "choosing not to-be autistic." I think the wording should be changed in the article. AnnieTigerChucky ( talk) 17:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I see that this article has been marked for "point of view" review. I'm largely responsible for its current revision (as of March 5, 2005), so I would be interested in hearing specific suggestions on how it might be edited to make the point of view more neutral.
Much of the text of the article I moved here from the Autism article. While I kept as much of the original text intact as I could out of respect for the previous author, I did excise or replace some words that struck me as a bit loaded with POV (e.g., changing "polemic" to "book"). On the other hand, a left intact several "scare quotes" (e.g., "real child", "triumph over autism") that might be interpreted as derisive. Is that the POV you find objectionable?
I tried to avoid wading into any of the disputes about whether or not Son-Rise is a cult, whether or not it promotes child abuse, and whether or not it is effective. I don't think statements either way on such questions can exist in an article that is supposed to have a "neutral point of view." In deference to the controversy over whether Raun was really autistic, I left intact the previous author's words "apparently" and "claim" in the History section, and I've modifed the text in the first paragraph to remove any POV about that either.
Although I have some knowledge about and a little experience with Son-Rise (did their 5-day start-up program), and therefore have a POV, I took pains to try to avoid injecting my own opinions, which I would be more than happy to share here on the discussion board (hint: we chose not to pursue Son-Rise).
I'm aware that Son-Rise provokes strong opinions on both sides, and that it would be difficult if not impossible to write an article about it that everyone agrees is unbiased, but it's worth trying.
If there are factual errors in the article, please fix them or point them out.
Thanks,
John
I've moved a few additions to the article into the discussion below, with my comments.
"Similar programs exist which eliminate the huge price tag, the unrealistic claims, and the hard sell approach. As always, parents should investigate thoroughly before investing their child and their money."
While I'm personally inclined to agree with much of this, it is not a neutral point of view. Its clear intent is to persuade the reader not to pursue Son-Rise. Same goes for the comment about Raun Kaufman being an "unpleasant young man".
Please, let's limit the article to facts, and keep the opinions in the discussion.
"Since many forms of autism are rooted in neurological hardwiring or biochemical differences, it might not be reasonable to expect such a program to produce a completely 'normal' child."
This is an argument about the effectiveness of the program, which is important to engage in, but as there has been no scientific study of Son-Rise, opinions really belong in the discussion.
"Perhaps the best that such a child could arrive at through Options is the ability to imitate so-called normal behavior."
This statement is more descriptive of therapist-directed inteventions like ABA. Like DIR, Son-Rise is largely child-directed. As such, imitating normal behavior is neither a goal nor a likely point of arrival. Indeed, there's a lot more parent imitating the child going on than the other way around. Jfinlayson 07:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Someone copied a reference from this article into the body of the autism article, with accompanying polemic and another anti-cult link ( http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/o/option/oi_statements.htm).
I've explained above why I think such argument belongs here, not there. If someone has a different opinion about where such discussion belongs, let's hear the argument for that. I'm open to persuasion.
Son-Rise is a relatively small, alternative program. There are a many more mainstream therapeutic interventions that deserve more attention in that Autism article. I wrote a section for RDI, because that's the program I'm most familiar with. I'd like to see more sections written by people with more knowledge about other programs.
In the meantime, if someone is on a campaign to discourage people from pursuing Son-Rise for whatever reason, that's fine, but I would suggest that a more effective approach would be to constructively provide some descriptions of more promising alternatives.
John Finlayson-Fife 22:36, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I've made some edits to this article after attending training for my own son, and have reviewed several of the prior listings as well. I can certainly state that the atmosphere and the training is not "cult-like", though many of the trainers and therapists obviously feel passionatel about their work, and believe in what they are doing. As for the cost, one can go online and find computer programs, therapists, and etc. that certainly cost as much if not more than the Son-Rise program costs. If one were to sum up the approach, it would be "advanced common sense", in that they take very specific techniques that make sense after reviewing them, which a frustrated, disappointed and angry parent might well not even consider to apply.
This change introduced two paragraphs about free lectures that appear to be a personal report. Unfortunately this counts as original research and as such should not appear in Wikipedia. I asked for citations but none have been forthcoming, so I removed the paragraphs. Eubulides 06:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a difficult point. I understand the need for only factual content in wiki, however in cases like this because the Son-Rise program is not supported by any evidence the whole topic becomes contentious. The very first line: Son-Rise is a treatment program for autism is not supported by ANY evidence and in my opinion is untrue. But this is allowed to remain. My criticism was based on my personal experience of attending a recent free lecture in London. As such there is no published article I can cite, however I have worked extensively with Autistic children running day centres, worked as a teacher, studied psychology at degree level and worked within clinical neurophysiology research at London hospitals at Masters Degree level. I felt compelled to add my part as the treatment is very obviously not a 'cure' for the very wide and very different abnormalities seen in AST. The general techniques employed will almost certainly help SOME children on the autistic spectrum disorder, as any child would benefit from intensive tuition. However, the talk greatly exaggerates the potential of the treatment, and bearing in mind the audience is made up of desperate parents, this is highly irresponsible. I hope this is the correct section in wiki for opinions, as it is necessary to be able to give opinions concerning topics such as this. In the meantime I will work on a report for the main page that can be re-worded. Thanks, Jackboy 29
How many people who have edited and expressed opinions on this program have run a program for a period of time? or Attended any of the courses or other autism treatment/early behavioural programs? what I find most amusing. Is that with such a diverse population, one program will not be universally greeted in a positive or negative way, it is impossible!. We do not agree on many different issues (politics/religon/fashion/healthcare etc..). If you take onboard the programs goals and it suits your parenting style then it can be a successful tool in helping your Autistic child. I also believe that parents running different programs will and have had success with their own children.If you do not believe in the program then you will lose the energy and enthusiasm to continue with it. I have run a program for a few years and have personally seen great improvments in a lot of areas with my child (I know this is only my POV). Whether or not my child would have had similar, better or worse achievements doing nothing or in another program, no-one can say. All the autistic children I know through the sonm-rise/options approach have progressed at some level. Some make huge progress others make small progress, the spectrum of success also only rates what individual goals different people are aiming at. I have attended the Start-up, Max-Impact, New-frontiers and the Family Intensive week long courses and have a good knowledge of the program. I have also looked at (briefly, not attended any of their courses) TEACHH, Lovaas, RDI, ABA, Growing minds etc... so I know their is a lot of choice out there for people to choose from. Some of the other programs have similarities with aspects of son-rise and some are total opposites. You then have the add ons that can be run along side program like tinted glasses, AIT, Dieting, Vitamins B12, Chelation and Natural oils and local honey......I still think (POV Again!!) that this is the most beneficial for us, as a family (Me, my wife, daughter and autistic son). Just to quickly clear up the expense of attending all the above courses for me and my wife, £0. The fabulous Caudwell charity funded all the week long courses in the UK, thanks to a partnership between them and the son-rise staff. We then used the fundraising pack from Autism treatment center of America, along with a scholarship from the ATCOA and we attended the family intensive week at the institute in USA. We learnt a great deal and saw impressive improvements in our son over the 5 days. From a Happy Son-Rise, DAD (B.Davies) Sorry! for it being a long post:) I just wanted to put my positive and truthful account of running this program, as a lot of people seem to knock it on this page?. I have also met Raun on a number of occasions and I can confirm that he is a genuinely, nice and generous person. Not as this post states( Raun Kaufman being an "unpleasant young man".) One last thing from critisms. The ATCOA is currently having a independant study of Son-Rise by the Lancaster University in UK and I believe I heard a similar study involving an American University (unconfirmed). The sentence about more drawbacks in running a son-rise program. How comes to read it costs 39.00 dollars for a month? also this goes against all the parents I know, have spoken to and keep in touch with. Try reading the messageboard on the son-rise website for FREE and get a FREE 25 min consultation call back with no obligation. Once again it all comes down to the individual and his/her experience of program. User:62.6.149.17 16th December 2007
Bruh.... You are forcing your own beliefs on your kid. Your love is great but misguided. Your kid knows that life is meaningless and we are all going to die, so just do what you like......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bombeen ( talk • contribs) 08:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for offering to help, really appriciate that. The below like works with regard to the article previously mentioned.
This is a link to the Son Rise sight listing lots of other articles showing parent sucess.
So just to help me make sure I am clear. I think we both agree that press stories and Documentaries are relavant. So i am hoping you will help me understand how to place them. To me this is fact obsurvations not POV?
Warm regards, Ezrah
Sandy,
I do believe this link is active, maybe I logged the edit incorrectly. I am very new to making contributions so please help me out. Also as I read the guidelines the introduction should be representative of the subject. The Son-Rise program has lots of anecdotal evidence of success and that seems to be worthy of the introduction.
I also added a BBC documentary post that was removed, because of no sighting but its featured and distributed by the people at Son-Rise. I am new to Wikipeidia and trying to contribute in the most productive way I can so I am open to input from you. I looked for a reference or pub date but could not find one. I have the documentary and again its distributed widely by Son-Rise so what is the nest way for something like this to be represented in the article?
Warm regards, Ezrah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrah 001 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed on Autism Treatment Center not being a independant source, but ther sight has several articles from sources that are. I will very much look forward to reading your thoughts once you have a chance to read these submissions. Thank you again, I am very new to this process and trhing to read and learn how to contribute in this type of forum. regards, Ezrah 001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrah 001 ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
There are currently studies that have started to study the program, so once I have that information I will share that. I have also requested copies of Studies already sighted so that more content from them can be included. The BBC did an actual documentary on a family tracing them long term is there a place in the article for that once I get the proper reference information on it? This is also in the category of investigative journalism not just reporting a story. Also since studies are in progress but not completed, information forth coming, and studies are cited, taking out that Son rise is some how resistant to being studied seems to be not accurate.
Regards, Ezrah 001 ( talk) 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Sandy,
The citing around costs of the program seems out of date. This is what I see on the sight referenced. It is very difficult to find out the costs of the different programs as it is not something readily advertised on their website. However, the estimates of the courses are as follow:
$1,995 for the Start-Up Program in the USA $2,385 for the Start-Up Program in the UK $11,500 for the Intensive Program $1,995 for the Maximum Impact Program in the USA $2,385 for the Maximum Impact Program in the UK Phone consultation $550 (50 minutes) though this can vary greatly depending on the professional you talk to. (This information is not correct, consultation prices range from $100 - $260, I know as a client that has used these services) The Institute can also provide information and possibly help to families in regards to financial assistance and fundraising (Kaufman, S. 1998).
Please also consider the organization is a Non Profit and they often offer substancial scholarships. I know in my own experience I could not afford the services on my own so I was given very generous scholarships. So I feel having only the quote that "The National Autistic Society points out the high cost of the program" is not refelctive of all information provided from what must me a credible sources since they are used in the article. So again I am at a loss as to how to best include this in the article. Ezrah 001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrah 001 ( talk • contribs) 01:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, the numbers are on the National Autism web sight. These fees include meals, housing and 5 days of training. Having looked into RDI for example there 2 day workshops were more money than this. So I dont think they are expensive conparitively. I will look for citable material on comparable training programs and costs. But the more important point I think is that the organization is a Non profit that offers scholarships to those in need so they can acess the programs.
This is what the National Autistic society says on the subject. "The Institute can also provide information and possibly help to families in regards to financial assistance and fundraising (Kaufman, S. 1998). There is information on specific UK funding at: www.autismtreatmentcenter.org/ contents/other_sections/uk_funding_available.php. The Options Institute has also written a fundraising pack which has suggestions of how to raise funds locally. You can download the pack from their website at: www.autismtreatmentcenter.org/contents/files/frguide.pdf."
So having that the program is expensive without information on scholarships or there non profit status seems to give a less than accurate presentation of information.
Warm regards, Ezrah 001 ( talk) 01:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sandy,
I have some new information and a proposed change. I suggest removed the Comment from the National Autism society "The National Autistic Society points out the high cost of the program"
I propose adding a section on costs with this content. Costs The Autism Treatment Center of America is a non profit; this allows them to offer scholarships (Sight The National Autistic Society). The first years costs of Son Rise training would be $5985 (Sandy this is for Start Up, Max Impact and New frontiers this is the training they recommend in the first year) (sight The National Autistic Society and Son Rise web sight) This is low compared to costs of other programs, "Ganz broke down the total costs…behavioral therapies (estimated to cost, on average, more than $29,000 per person per year)". (sighting information, Todd Datz, tdatz@hsph.harvard.edu, (617) 432-3952, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2006-releases/press04252006.html )
I would welcome your feedback and thoughts on this information. As a client of Son Rise I can tell you this program is much less expensive than other programs. As a results of attend all three training classes listed I can tell you I have never meet a person that is paying more to do there Son Rise program than any other. Lots of my fellow students have done other programs or looked into them and this information is consistent with my experience. Its much less expensive to do Son Rise than any other, SO I would very much like to correct this error on the article.
Warm regards, Ezrah 001 ( talk) 12:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sandy I get all that but I feel its presented as a fact when it is not. I am going to put some facts into play in the article regarding costs.
Thank you Ezrah 001 ( talk) 15:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |laydate=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysource=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)The text you inserted includes original research and synthesis not supported by the cite given (comparison of costs), [3] introduces an unnecessary section heading, and needs to be copyedited. Something like this might be acceptable, but is still bordering on synthesis by comparing overall costs of other autism programs to Son-Rise, which doesn't encompass the treatment covered in the Harvard figures:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been seeking information on procing of programs and have a request into Autims speaks for such information. I am hoping this will bring better results.
I hope at this point we can all agree that Son Rise is not unusually expensive. With regard to stories, I think people that are fund raising tend to do stories on the program. I also think they are fund raising for long term program costs. All I can tell you is my experience is like what I lised above and will continue to research sources on costs. This seems like a incorrect fact that seems to be perpetuated by speculation like from articles like you mention. If we are going to have information on costs, lets do it based on fact not what others have fund raised in the name of doing a Son Rise program.
So for now I would like to see the removal of the coment that the program is expensive and as soon as I have information will keep submitting it.
Warm regards,
Ezrah 001 ( talk) 16:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I respectfully disagree. This same source lists the costs of the program clearly and other references show that other therapies are more expensive than Son Rise. http://www.fightingautism.org/clock/
What is meant by U.S. Annual Economic Cost? while the annual cost of education of a child with autism is estimated at $40,000. Typically a child with autism requires specialized medical treatment, which is an additional expense. Therefore, $30,000 per child with autism is an under estimate. Some parents report spending $65,000 per year.
________________________________________________________
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2006-releases/press04252006.html
Contact: Todd Datz tdatz@hsph.harvard.edu (617) 432-3952 Harvard School of Public Health 677 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115
Ganz broke down the total costs…behavioral therapies (estimated to cost, on average, more than $29,000 per person per year) and direct non-medical costs, such as special education, camps, and child care (estimated to annually cost more than $38,000 for those with lower levels of disability and more than $43,000 for those with higher levels).
The same sighting also source also says, The Institute can also provide information and possibly help to families in regards to financial assistance
The same sight has a pros sestion but you all have only included excerpts from the cons section. One of the biggest advantages reported by parents doing the Program is the amount of productive and positive time they can spend with their child (Jordan and Powell 1993). Williams (2004) carried out a survey on parents doing the Program, and many noted that the family generally felt more positive and interaction amongst the whole family had improved since doing the Program (Williams 2004). The Program shares a number of features with other autism-specific programs, particularly the environmental and sensory impact and the need to develop empathy for the way the child sees the world. However, possibly the most striking feature of the Program, is the huge amount of one-to-one intervention the child can receive on a daily basis. There is research to support that such huge levels of intensive interaction can encourage development in the child, though this is not specifically in regards to Son-Rise (Jordan and Powell 1993).
Why is non of the above in the article? I am hoping to help create more balances article. I will seek the help of a Wipedia mentor to help with this. In the mean time I would appreciate your helping balance the article. When I read this there is much that I simply don't recognise as the program and services I personally know. The reality is a far cry from what is on this sight from my perspective.
Warm regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrah 001 ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The Harvard press release talks about Ganz 2007, but that doesn't mention Son-Rise either, so I'm not sure how it would be relevant. Here's the full citation: Ganz ML (2007). "The lifetime distribution of the incremental societal costs of autism". Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 161 (4): 343–9. PMID 17404130. Lay summary – Harvard School of Public Health (2006-04-25). I found one not-that-reliable source saying that Son-Rise costs ₤10,000/year in Britain.[2] I found no high-quality work on the relative costs of programs. Eubulides (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the quote that I felt was realvant, Ganz broke down the total costs…behavioral therapies (estimated to cost, on average, more than $29,000 per person per year) Ezrah 001 ( talk) 16:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
In looking through the above comments and at the text, I see the following points:
Draft replacement starts here.
This article needs additional citations for
verification. (March 2008) |
At the Autism Treatment Center of America, parents are given training to help them encourage their child to interact and socialize more effectively. The acquisition of developmental skills plays an important role in the program, however the priority in a Son-Rise Program is encouraging socialization and communication abilities. While there are other programs that emphasize a play-based therapy, such as Dr. Stanley Greenspan's DIR/ Floortime model, one of the distinguishing features of Son-Rise is its emphasis on loving and accepting the child just as he or she is, with the idea that the autistic child "senses" your attitude through your voice, body language and non-verbal behavior.
The Son-Rise philosophy states that if you approach the child with a positive, loving attitude, the child is more likely to interact than if you engage with a sense of underlying anger, despair, hopelessness and desperation. The idea is based upon the belief that any child, even an autistic child, is more likely to thrive by means of interaction and play with others who are having fun with the child and enjoying what the child enjoys. As the child engages with parent or caregiver, a constant attempt is made to expand the child's interest beyond " self-stimulating" behaviors.
Many parents struggle to accept their child's diagnosis and the unique behaviors of autism. It is not uncommon for parents to experience guilt or fears for the future. Son-Rise says that, by offering parents support in these areas, parents are able to attain a greater degree of comfort playing with their child and in their day-to-day life with their child. They say this attitude, combined with specific play strategies, gives parents a greater opportunity to encourage more of the type of interactions that they wish to create with their child.
Son-Rise is volunteer-intensive with high turnover, and may require parents to fill in staffing gaps. [1]
Son-Rise has never allowed formal scientific evaluations of effectiveness. [1] Questions have been raised whether Raun Kaufman was actually autistic before being treated. [2] There are no documented normalizations with older children, and it may be that success "depends on a certain level of intellectual potential". [3] Some professionals have questioned the emphasis placed on eye contact and its potential aversiveness for some children. [1]
The consensus within the medical community is that there is no cure for autism and only a very few treatments have empirical evidence for improvements in symptoms. [2] [4] A 2003 study found that involvement with the Son-Rise Program led to more drawbacks than benefits for the involved families over time, although family stress levels did not rise in all cases. [5] A 2006 study found that the Son-Rise Program is not always implemented as it is typically described in the literature, which suggests it will be difficult to evaluate its efficacy. [6]
Draft replacement ends here.
Looks good, agree with all, have never liked citing NAS and don't like the quality of those sources; sorry I can't help much, but Ima Hogg will keep me busy for April Fools Day. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Eubulides, and Sandy. Son Rise has had a new book published on treatment and has a Developmental model on its web sight that is the most up to date on the subject. Would http://www.optionindigo.com/product.aspx?68 and http://www.autismtreatmentcenter.org/contents/other_sections/developmental_model.php be considered a source that meets teh standards Verifiability, Reliable sources I agree lets in some ways start fresh. Sandy I do belive you are looking to hold the article to a standard if you will. I am goign to take a few days and gather what I feel is the most up to date information and then get some consensous and then move ahead from there.
Warm regards, Ezrah 001 ( talk) 23:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I propose deleting this, http://www.autismtreatmentcenter.org/cgi-local/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=36&topic=2 this is just one study that is currently being done and since the information is on there web sight they must be not only allowing research but helping facilitate it. Ezrah 001 ( talk) 12:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi all! I just wanted to add a couple quick notes, since I've read the full text of a couple of the cited studies/books. In Williams/Wishart (2003), under Methods, it states "Three separate questionnaires were sent out over a one-year period to families who had attended an initial SRP 'start-up' group training course in the UK in 1998...Questionnaire 1 was sent to all course participants..." This would clearly indicate the authors were given access by that program to its clients for the purposes of the study, contradicting the cited statement from the NAS website.
Also, even though it was mainly directed at impact on the family, the same study produced the following data: when asked "Overall, how beneficial would you say Son-Rise has been for your child?" the participants responded "16 felt that the programme had been very effective, eight moderately, seven slightly and none (reported) not at all effective".
Okay, and I think I've figured out how citing works, to a degree. So the Herbert/Sharp/Guadiano (2002) then refers to Siegel (1996) for the part about questioning if this person was actually autistic. My question is: Siegel is the original source, and her book was published by a reputable publishing house, but her statements are clearly biased against "Options" as she calls it, such as "This therapy makes little sense developmentally", then she goes on to inaccurately describe the methodology. In fact, her book takes a somewhat snide, attacking stance against anything she considers "non-mainstream". Under these conditions, can this still be considered a "reliable source"?
Anyway, that's what I came across. If you find this useful and someone wants to take a stab at updating the wording, be my guest, since I'm not sure when I will have the time to propose wording myself. Hope I did this correctly, feel free to let me know what I could have done better! Sdscreenwriter ( talk) 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Greetings. I have read the Williams studies as well and have copies of the 2003 and 2006 papers. The 2006 paper is titled: "The Son-Rise Program® intervention for autism: Prerequisites for evaluation" and is most certainly research designed to help evaluate the effectiveness of the program. While the study itself is not testing the effectiveness of the son rise program, it is the first step in the process of that research, determining the challenges and prerequisites for any further evaluation. These Williams papers will be cited for sure in any subsequent study of the son rise program.
The paper itself recognizes this is its purpose:
The study described below aimed to identify the profile of children and families involved in the SRP, to establish the typical patterns in intervention use (plus any changes in these over time), and to explore the extent to which low treatment fidelity, concurrent intervention use and concurrent school attendance were likely to present methodological challenges to any future evaluation of the efficacy of the SRP as an intervention for autism. -Autism 10(1) pg 89
It is the first step in the evaluation process and it makes perfect sense that the son rise people would first want to make sure there was an adequate understanding of the challenges facing any studies of the effectiveness of their program.
As such, I think their facilitation of Dr. Williams studies over the course of at least 3 years (2003-2006) clearly refutes the NAS unsourced claim on their website. TacoChuck ( talk) 21:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Good to have some additional contributors. I would also like to note that the quote given is only the first half of the statement. The full statement is “Drawbacks were reported more often than benefits at both time-points. However, it is worth noting that some of the families reporting drawbacks indicated either that these were not severe or that they were implementing the programme in a way which minimized disruption to family life.” Other relevant comments include, “Neither stress nor happiness levels were significantly correlated, positively or negatively, with personal hours of involvement in programme delivery, total hours or duration of intervention. However, increased happiness was related to holding meetings for volunteer helpers” Volunteer meeting is a core part of what I was trained to do as client. So if you are not conducting volunteer meetings you are not running a program as prescribed if you will. I would like the quote amended to be more representative of the findings. I propose we add in the “However, it is worth noting that some of the families reporting drawbacks indicated either that these were not severe or that they were implementing the programme in a way which minimized disruption to family life” Any thoughts? Ezrah 001 ( talk) 21:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
1 if we are to use summary information only how about we draw from the conclusing section of the 2003 study which says. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present study emphasize the need for those supporting families using home-based interventions to consider the needs of the whole family. This may be especially important if there are periods during which the family find the intervention to be less effective. Families embarking on such intensive approaches may also benefit from considering ways in which any disruption to family life can be minimized. 2 I would agree that digging into an article to find contradicting statements seem less than useful. I would also say the researcher says himself that is it "However, it is worth noting that some of the families reporting drawbacks indicated either that these were not severe or that they were implementing the programme in a way which minimized disruption to family life.” These are his words "worthy or noting" not mine. So I do not feel this is digging for contradictory information. 3 This is what Wipedia says about NAS "The National Autistic Society (NAS) is the United Kingdom's most prominent autism-related charity. It states that it exists to champion the rights and interests of all people with autism and to ensure that they and their families receive quality services appropriate to their needs. The NAS launched a "Make School Make Sense" campaign in May 2006 at the Houses of Parliament, with speakers including Jane Asher (who is also president of the charity and takes an active role in its running) and Joshua Muggleton, a speaker and writer on autistic spectrum disorders, disability, and education.
The NAS has a mixed reception among the UK aspergers community. Some feel their work is good, other feel that they cling to old methods and care more about the society than the people they set out to aim." So clearly there are some that question there information assuming we take Wikipedia as a reliable source. Ezrah 001 ( talk) 00:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Eubulides, I took information from the research that was the sample that was farther along in the study the researcher felt that was more statistically relevant so that is what I sampled. My motivation is to create accuracy and find common ground, which I think, is a shared interest between the two of us. So let me confirm common ground. The study primary intent was not around effectiveness but it is in the effectiveness section as well as above in the main article. I question the need for duplication. I would suggest deleting this second reference or add the one question that was asked around effectiveness, since the study findings are in the effectiveness section of the article. "Overall how beneficial would you say Son-Rise has been for your child?’, and requested to tick ‘not at all’, ‘slightly’, ‘moderately’ or ‘very’. Out of the 31 responses to this question, 16 felt that the programme had been very effective, eight moderately, seven slightly and none not at all effective." Again in an effort to establish common ground if I read this correctly 100% of the respondents felt the program was beneficial for there children or the majority (51%) felt it was very effective. I would welcome thoughts on this and suggested edits from anyone. Ezrah 001 ( talk) 22:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it was mentioned above that while the NAS site is referenced several times for critical items, there is no reference to the site for any of the positive items. Since there is no positive content in the entire "Effectiveness" section, I propose the following addition that section:
Although no research currently exists formally evaluating the effectiveness of the Son-Rise Program, the program does involved a very large amount of one-on-one interaction with the child and there is research to show that large amounts of intensive interaction with an Autistic child can have positive impacts. Other research specifically on the Son-Rise program found that the participating families felt more positive overall and that interactions among the family as a whole had improved while using the Son-Rise program.
All sourced to the NAS page about Son-Rise. TacoChuck ( talk) 14:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)I suggest the below as a replacement for the "Effectiveness" section. It adds only 2 pieces of information from NAS website source. Eubulides asked me to propose the additions in context of the whole section so I have reorganized the section and added the two items in.
I reorganized the whole section to hopefully increase readability and group related items more closely.
I don't agree with the inclusion of most of the items in the section and my including them here can not be viewed as my endorsement of them as being appropriate. I have left every item intact except for a few very tiny changes required for the reorganization to read properly.
I also don't know how to display the footnotes in this suggested replacement so they could be checked to make sure they are pointing to the proper places, although I changed none intentionally and only added ref tags name=NAS to the two facts I added into the section as that was their source for me. TacoChuck ( talk) 20:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Draft replacement starts here.
The consensus within the medical community is that there is no cure for autism and only a very few treatments have empirical evidence for improvements in symptoms. [1] [2] Son-Rise has never allowed formal scientific evaluations of effectiveness. [3] A 2006 study found that the Son-Rise Program is not always implemented as it is typically described in the literature, which suggests it will be difficult to evaluate its efficacy. [4]
The program's huge amount of one-on-one interaction with the child can encourage the child's development, according to research that is not specific to Son-Rise.
[3] A 2003 study found that involvement with the Son-Rise Program led to more drawbacks than benefits for the involved families over time, although family stress levels did not rise in all cases.
[5] A subsequent analysis by the same researcher found that overall the participating families felt more positive and that interactions among the family as a whole had improved while using the Son-Rise program.
[3]
The program presents no documented normalizations with older children, and it may be that its success "depends on a certain level of intellectual potential". [6] Questions have been raised whether Raun Kaufman was actually autistic before being treated. [1] Some professionals have questioned the emphasis placed on eye contact and its potential aversiveness for some children. [3]
Draft replacement ends here.
Thanks. I edited the above draft as follows:
There's still a real problem with the draft though, which I've indicated by striking out the sentence involved. The sentence is:
Here are some problems with this sentence:
Eubulides ( talk) 22:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Program intervention, as hypothesized, leads to an increase in social orienting and joint attention skills in children with autism. Continued analysis is underway.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)This series of edits inserted a lot of changes, all unsourced. For now, I'm reverting them; please add sources for claims like that. I see a fact tag in the article, which suggests that some of the claims now in the article should be removed; I'll take a look at that next. Eubulides ( talk) 04:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The following two lines are in the article summary at the top, and then are repeated in the effectiveness section.
"A 2003 study found that involvement with the program led to more drawbacks than benefits for the involved families over time,[2] and a 2006 study found that the program is not always implemented as it is typically described in the literature, which suggests it will be difficult to evaluate its efficacy."
It seems to me that repeating these two lines overemphasizes what is actually a healthy scientific skepticism about the program, and in overemphasizing it, actually detracts from the power of that healthy skepticism.
Is there any way to have these two lines in one spot or the other in the article, but not in both? I think this would improve the article.
Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminady ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
207.75.81.12 ( talk) 19:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121026125021.htm
This study done by UCDavis MIND Institute seems to vindicate this early intervention therapy. The comments in this talk section refer to the fact that the autistic brain lacks areas non-autistic children have. It has been clear for some time now that epigenetic tagging alters responses within a human-response time frame. Lamarkian inheritance is correct. It is entirely possible that this one-on-one 24-7 therapy erases a 'turned on' tag. Admittedly it is a herculean task to perfom this intensive therapy,and success should not be minimized. I disagree with the description that 'this type of therapy has not been performed before.' Outside manistream successes should be recognized and not minimized for this heart-breaking condition.
Went through reference [5] [1] but could not find anywhere the what editior claim is being said in this article, i.e. "While five clinics throughout New York State described the boy as "socially withdrawn and uncommunicative" in the 1970s, only one clinic confirmed the diagnosis of autism". Only the first part of statement i.e. " Questions have been raised whether Raun Kaufman was actually autistic before being treated. " exists in reference. Could be that this is taken from the reference of the refernce i.e. from Siegle Bryan's book: Siegel, B. (1996). The world of the autistic child: Understanding and treating autistic spectrum disorders. New York: Oxford University Press.
[10] gives some more on the statements of Siegle Bryan's claim. Naber78 ( talk) 07:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The singular description of "Autism" is too vague to describe adequately what the subject is about. The updated description of "Autism-related organizations in the United States" helps define the subject well. 174.23.171.229 ( talk) 12:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)