So your IQ score is relatively stable, no matter what education you acquire. This does not mean that you can't increase your intelligence. IQ tests are only one imperfect method of measuring certain aspects of
intellectual ability. A lot of critics point out that IQ tests don't measure creativity, social skills, wisdom, acquired abilities or a host of other things we consider to be aspects of intelligence. The value of IQ tests is that they
measure general cognitive ability, which has been proven to be a fairly accurate indicator of intellectual potential. There is a high positive correlation between IQ and success in school and the work place, but there are many, many cases where IQ and success do not coincide.

What constitutes a person's IQ?
by Marshall Brain from: http://www.howstuffworks.com/question455.htm

The term IQ, or Intelligence Quotient, generally describes a score on a test that rates the subject's cognitive ability as compared to the general population. IQ tests use a standardized scale with 100 as the median score. On most tests, a score between 90 and 110, or the median plus or minus 10, indicates average intelligence. A score above 130 indicates exceptional intelligence and a score below 70 may indicate mental retardation. Like their predecessors, modern tests do take in to account the age of a child when determining an IQ score.
Children are graded relative to the population at their developmental level.

What is this cognitive ability being measured? Simply put, IQ tests (of varying reliability) are designed to measure your general ability to solve problems and understand concepts. This includes reasoning ability, problem-solving ability, ability to perceive relationships between things and ability to store and retrieve information. IQ tests measure this general intellectual ability in a number of different ways. They may test:

spatial ability: the ability to visualize manipulation of shapes
mathematical ability: the ability to solve problems and use logic
language ability: This could include the ability to complete sentences or recognize words when letters have been rearranged or removed.
memory ability: the ability to recall things presented either visually or aurally

Questions in each of these categories test for a specific cognitive ability, but many psychologists hold that they also indicate general intellectual ability. Most people perform better on one type of question than on others, but experts have determined that for the most part people who excel in one category do similarly well in the other categories, and if someone does poorly in any one category, he also does poorly in the others. Based on this, these experts theorize there is one general element of intellectual ability that determines other specific cognitive abilities. Ideally,
an IQ test measures this general factor of intelligence, abbreviated as g. The best tests, therefore, feature questions from many categories of intellectual ability so that the test isn't weighted toward one specific skill.

Because IQ tests measure your ability to understand ideas and not the quantity of your knowledge, learning new information does not automatically increase your IQ. Learning may exercise your mind, however, which could help you to develop greater cognitive skills, but scientists do not fully understand this relationship. The connection
between learning and mental ability is still largely unknown, as are the workings of the brain and the nature of intellectual ability. Intellectual ability does seem to depend more on genetic factors than on environmental factors, but most experts agree that environment plays some significant role in its development.

ABA (which at its heart is based upon Skinner's principles and is actually the basis of all teaching) provides a way to break through the barriers, fostering both expressive communication as well asimitative learning. TEACCH fails in this regard because the core assumption of the TEACCH program is that the autistic state cannot be ammended and therefore the environment must be molded to the child's current level of existance.

Take off the blinders and read the meta-analysis of the various studies conducted. The ABA programs with the strictess control over the trainers posted significant gains in testable IQ while TEACCH posted gains which are statistically insignificant.

Thanks for the kind words. Debates like these can be a bit abrasive, so just to set the basis point, I would like to point out, that I think it is commendable when people choose to work with people in need. I think there are good tools in all the dominant methods for autism treatment, and that very few have less than the noblest of reasons for doing/believing what they do.

My son has been in TEACCH preschool and school programs for the past three years, and we have actively been fighting this for the past two years. We worked within the system for the first year, but saw his social capabilities deteriorate and found that the advice we received did not help him – on the contrary. We do not see TEACCH as an outstanding program, but as a system that has huge limitations and which has done significant damage to our son.

We have meet many engaged and kind people that want what they believe is best for our son, yet the 12 teachers and 4 psychologists that have been involved, have not managed to push our son satisfactory. Neither has understood how capable he actually is when supported in the right way. Though he has improved in some areas, the work to transfer these capabilities to normal environments have been abysmal. He did not reapply his basic skills until we removed him from the TEACCH environment. Our experience with TEACCH is simply that our son develops significantly less in that system, than without it.

I have seen this claim of IQ being static from TEACCH sources before. It is however not a valid claim, as IQ measures the age equivalent ability to apply your knowledge and abilities, not a measurement of brain function. If you took two people that at age 7 had identical intelligence and one went to school for twelve years and the other one did not, you would see a profound difference in IQ, even though none had been trained specifically in the IQ test.

Highly esteemed TEACCH researchers like Rita Jordan, describe the TEACCH structure as "a concession to the autistic way of thinking; what is created is an autistic environment where the individual with autism can function" (p. 30 - Jordan et al. June 1998 final report to the DfEE). Recognizing the problem of the child never learning to function in the everyday world, Jordan et al. note that TEACCH has resolved this by creating a "cradle to grave" service (p. 30). There is then little belief or expectation that an autistic individual can ever function normally. While Jordan and Schopler view the autistic child as unable to ever be non-autistic, there is much documentation to the contrary, and therefore I find the unfounded claims of Eric Schopler (TEACCH Founder) dangerous.

The focus on accepting “the culture of autism” is an accept of behaviours and limitations that will follow the child throughout its life.

Given my own experience, I would NEVER use TEACCH as a first measure. My experience is that it is paramount to view any child as a normal child with problems, rather than an autistic child. The difference between kids with an autism diagnosis is so significant that it is difficult to justify the common classification.

Just out of curiosity, how many years has your son been with the ABA programs?

One of the biggest downfalls of trying to "cure" an autistic person is that you end up taking away what make them themselves. Most of the time that leads to depression and medication for it. Trying to rid and hide their traits is a good way to diminish their self-esteem as well.

]Dad and Jens,

AN IQ does NOT CHANGE. That is not BS DAD or a TEACCH "thing" it is scientific fact:

Because IQ tests measure your ability to understand ideas and not the quantity of your knowledge, learning new information does not automatically increase your IQ. Learning may exercise your mind, however, which could help you to develop greater cognitive skills, but scientists do not fully understand this relationship.

If I may, I'd like to ask a question and maybe elaborate after you answer. What basic skills did your son lose and what deterioration of skills did you see?

As to generalizing (transfering skills in teacher talk - sorry ) that is built into the TEACCH program via home support (assuming it was provided). The easiest part is getting the skills into the home, the hardest is generalizing the skills in other situations, unless the child obsesses on the skill, then we get the skill all the time...even where we don't want it

It's also possible the program wasn't run correctly...I'd need more information before going down that road. I will say that the activities you describe sound about right.

The culture of autism provides a way for the teacher to understand the autistic student and the challenges he/she faces daily. We don't see the child as limited nor do we accept behaviors, but we do understand what the behaviors are trying to tell us.
.

I cannot see that a statement as

Quote:

"Because IQ tests measure your ability to understand ideas and not the quantity of your knowledge, learning new information does not automatically increase your IQ. Learning may exercise your mind, however, which could help you to develop greater cognitive skills, but scientists do not fully understand this relationship."


supports your statements. The operational word is AUTOMATICALLY.

I don’t think that you will find many people – let alone teachers – that believes that education and environment cannot impact student’s cognitive levels (ie. IQ) by more than 5 IQ points.

I cannot see from your link that science supports your claim. At the end of the day you use IQ, and the multitude of social and psychological tests, because those best reflect real world capabilities, and I personally believe that standardised internationally recognised tests are the only way to eliminate bias towards one system or the other. If your favourite sports team looses it is always easy to blame the other team for cheating or the referee for being unfair.

...Lost capabilities and negative developments;
5 weeks after starting in the TEACCH based school system his ability to play in a playground (unsupervised by adults) was reducer from 90 to 5 minutes, due to development of physically and verbally aggressive behaviour. Adopted high pitched screaming, self esteem deteriorated and toyed with thoughts that the family would be better of if he was dead. Became afraid of contact with other kids.

This is the most negative side I see of TEACCH, but that does not negate the fact that we have seen nothing close to age appropriate development, in spite of having 25-30 support hours per week. All in all pretty poor results though all teachers he has had have been proficient in all the TEACCH tools that I have been presented for in courses.

I know of only one study where the development of the IQ of children in TEACCH programs have been measured - the infamous study where Schopler used different IQ scales on intake/evaluation - yet many eclectic programs based on TEACCH has shown an actual decline in IQ. That is what I would expect to see from TEACCH if long term documentation was collected.

You might be right, yet I fault the TEACCH system not the teachers, as many of the applications of the tools defies normal logic. Insisting that fully verbal kids use visual aids for simple tasks like telling that they would like to use the computer. TEACCH in my experience sticks use supportive environments/materials way longer than needed. This in my opinion forces a reliance on materials/environments that is counter productive...

...This is also the claim in ABA, and it is a matter of what you do with the information. What I have seen in TEACCH environments is an inability to moderate and reduce ex. aggressive behaviour, as many of the systems I have seen applied actually enforces behaviour. TEACCH seems to only be able to reduce behaviour when it is founded in stress by inability to predict situations.

While TEACCH oftentimes will be better than no support, I think it is unacceptable that other children are forced into TEACCH programs, rather than being offered programs with more progressive development potentials.

Actually those I've spoken with do. It’s a fairly well know fact that ABA people chose to ignore.

Suicidal behavior is very unusual in autistic kids. One would wonder if he wasn't echoing something he heard somewhere else (echolagia(sp)). The behaviors could have been, and likely were, picked up from other kids in the room (something very common in many SPED classrooms and not the result of a TEACCH program).

Teach is a full-time program. If he was only getting 25-30 hours/week he wasn't getting a full time program. I NEVER saw a student regress in the program and age appropriate development comes from the materials. One would wonder if age-appropriate materials at his age/skill level were used. This would be the teacher's responsibility, not a TEACCH failure.

Behaviors are modified and unwanted behaviors are ended. TEACCH teaches the teacher to understand what the behaviors are telling us and the difference between learned behaviors and behaviors arising from a situation that may well be a communication. Behaviors are analyzed, understood, and then dealt with. I have seen no program with better development potential or that provides the student with a greater opportunity for independance than TEACCH.

Can't you folks agree to disagree. In all honesty the power of any program lies with those who believe in it and practicie it. If you believe in something you are not going to half ass it. Sounds like no one here is half assing so all of your children will succeed. It is not the program, it is the teacher.

MADSEC Autism Task Force has characterized the interventions reviewed as follows:

• Substantiated as effective based upon the scope and quality of research: Applied behavior analysis. In addition, applied behavior analysis’ evaluative procedures are effective not only with behaviorally-based interventions, but also for the systematic evaluation of the efficacy of any intervention intended to affect individual learning and behavior. ABA’s emphasis on functional assessment and positive behavioral support will help meet heightened standards of IDEA ‘97. Its emphasis on measurable goals and reliable data collection will substantiate the child’s progress in the event of due process.
• Shows promise, but is not yet objectively substantiated as effective for individuals with autism using controlled studies and subject to the rigors of good science: Auditory Integration Training, The Miller Method, Sensory Integration, and TEACCH.

In my opinion the most important difference between the programs, is the focus of ABA on objective observation and measurable effect. This avoids misinterpitation of cause and effect. I don't have a problem with any single tool used in any of the TEACCH programs that I have been intimately involved in - though I have seen them misapplied due to the lack of objectivity.

If TEACCH used the advice given in the highlighted section of the MADSEC report, the vast majority of the problems I have experienced with TEACCH, would have been eliminated.

The basis of any succesful intervension is knowing where (exactly) you are, and where you wish to go. Where TEACCH has failed in our case is the ability to account for why the functional capabilities deteriorate so massively in the structured TEACCH environment compared to an unstructured home environment. Why can a kid that is able to play 6 hrs unsupervised at a friends house, not play with the same kids for 5 minutes when supervised by TEACCH trained personnel.

That is the fault of the teachers not the TEACCH program. The program is a highly successful program and not to blame for a teacher failure. Hell, I've seen teachers screw up an SRA (scripted reading lesson) and that's almost impossible to screw up.

Don't discard the highly successful TEACCH program just because a teacher didn't use it properly.

We seem to deteriorate the debate to the "two 5 year olds in a sandbox level"

You cannot possibly determine whether the two TEACCH programs my son has been in were run correctly. That you assume that you are right, and the 3 psychologists and 10 teachers who have been involved with my son are wrong, is pretty presumptuous. They all want to do the the best job possible, and assume they do so, yet the TEACCH program just doesn't deal properly with kids that are not relying on visual structures to function.



When you try to prove your points you refer to the TEACCH company website and blogs of questionable credibility, which don’t even claim what you cite them for. Do you actually think that the TEACCH Company website is an appropriate source for objective information on the program?

You accuse all people, be it psychologists, ABA and other researchers, the MADSEC committee, where every single member has credentials that far exceeds yours, for be hoodwinked, fraudulent or plain incompetent. The proof is that you – and other people associated with TEACCH disagree with them.

When 254 scientific – peer reviewed studies – are sited by MADSEC, which have all had a level of integrity that have prompted scientific magazines to publish them AFTER a peer review, your clear vision is amazing. Your views are "probably" more credible than the 1000+ researchers/scientists involved either in the studies or the scientific review of the studies.

TEACCH is a program that does not have UNBIASED documentation for its effect, as opposed to ABA. It is people like you with your neoreligious preaching about TEACCH that stops kids like my son from getting the help needed.

I know that the TEACCH program has many good sides, but it is the fanatism in presenting half-truths as absolute facts, the massive misinformation spread that is the reason that I dislike the program. TEACCH should learn from ABA rather than spend so much effort trying to avoid implementing of a professional quality assurance component in your system.

You have formerly cited Michelle Dawson’s criticism of ABA. Though very lopsided, at least she makes a point of substantiating her criticism of individual studies (but not her suggestion for alternatives). Following a logic – like you do in your MADSEC claims – that if a study should find that ABA is better documented than TEACCH, then it is not credible. This is simply an unprofessional attitude.

You can quote TEACCH promotional material as much as you like, you might yourself be 100% convinced that it is the best program there is, it does however not make that program more effective.

As written elsewhere, you cannot possibly determine whether the two TEACCH programs my son has been in were run correctly. That you assume that you are right, and the 3 psychologists and 10 teachers who have been involved with my son are wrong, is pretty presumptuous. They all want to do the the best job possible, and assume they do so, yet the TEACCH program just doesn't deal properly with kids that are not relying on visual structures to function.

I have answered the same fabrications and lies before:9/quote]

ABA and the false and fraudulant research you quote is a highly dangerous and damaging program. Here is a an open letter from a parent whose child was traumatised by ABA http://www.astraeasweb.net/politics/aba.html

ABA is a dagerous and falso program. Even the research done at UCLA but that liar Lovas has been discounted. It was improper research and the definiton of "helped" is a joke.

Let's look at what scientists are saying about ABA:



That's right "misleading and irresponsible".

Here's the source: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/autism.html

ANd in fairness they said about TEACCH:



Signifficantly more improvement that teach in development and other skills. They'd like to see greater research but TEACCH is the better program.

And a little more for you:

.

In other words TEACCH claims are honest while aba "exaggarates" their claims to say the least.

They also go on to say that IQ is not an effective measurement.

[quuote]You cannot possibly determine whether the two TEACCH programs my son has been in were run correctly. That you assume that you are right, and the 3 psychologists and 10 teachers who have been involved with my son are wrong, is pretty presumptuous. They all want to do the the best job possible, and assume they do so, yet the TEACCH program just doesn't deal properly with kids that are not relying on visual structures to function.

Proudliberaldem makes many false claims in support of a program with inferiour effectiveness (TEACCH), and continues the fraudulet claims made by the TEACCH founder.

TEACCH does not have any documentation from sources that are not financially dependent of positive evaluations, ABA does!

ABA and the false and fraudulant research you quote is a highly dangerous and damaging program. Here is a an open letter from a parent whose child was traumatised by ABA http://www.astraeasweb.net/politics/aba.html

That is the fault of the teachers not the TEACCH program. The program is a highly successful program and not to blame for a teacher failure. Hell, I've seen teachers screw up an SRA (scripted reading lesson) and that's almost impossible to screw up.

Don't discard the highly successful TEACCH program just because a teacher didn't use it properly.

They rely on a false study done at UCLA where LESS THAN 50% ever were thought to have been helped (46% to be exact).

Thank you for finding more psudoscientific articles that are not published in scientific magazines where fellow scientists would have reviewed whether the paper was credible or not.

This article was first published in the Spring-Summer edition of The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice.

* Adams, L., & Conn, S. (1997). Nutrition and its relationship to autism. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 12, 53-58.
* Allen, J., DeMeyer, M. K., Norton, J. A., Pontus, W., & Yang, E. (1971). Intellectuality in parents of psychotic, subnormal, and normal children. Journal of Autism & Childhood Schizophrenia, 3, 311-326.
* Aman, M. G., & Langworthy, K. S. (2000). Pharmacotherapy for hyperactivity in children with autism and other pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 451-459.
* American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1999). Practice parameters for the assessment and treatment of children, adolescents, and adults with autism and other pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 32-54.
* American Academy of Pediatrics (1998). Auditory integration training and facilitated communication for autism. American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on children with disabilities. Pediatrics, 102, 431-433.
* American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
* Anderson, L. T., Campbell, M., Grega, D. M., Perry, R., Small, A. M., & Green, W. H. (1984). Haloperidol in the treatment of infantile autism: Effects on learning and behavioral symptoms. American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, 1195-1202.
* Anderson, S. R., Avery, D. L., DiPietro, E. K., Edwards, G. L., & Christian, W. P. (1987). Intensive home-based early intervention with autistic children. Education and Treatment of Children, 10, 352-366.
* Ayres, A. J. (1979). Sensory integration and the child. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
* Berand, G. (1993). Hearing equals behavior. New Canaan, CT: Keats.
* Beratis, S. (1994). A psychodynamic model for understanding pervasive developmental disorders. European Journal of Psychiatry, 8, 209-214.
* Bettelheim, B. (1967). The empty fortress. New York: Free Press.
* Bettison, S. (1996). The long-term effects of auditory training on children with autism. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 26, 361-374.
* Birnbrauer, J., & Leach, D. (1993). The Murdoch early intervention program after 2 years. Behavior Change, 10, 63-74.
* Bolman, W. M., & Richmond, J. A. (1999). A double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot trial of low dose dimethylglycine in patients with autistic disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 29, 191-194.
* Brasic, J. R., Barnett, J. Y., Kaplan, D., Sheitman, B. B., Aisemberg, P., Lafargue, R. T., Kowalik, S., Clark, A., Tsaltas, M. O., & Young, J. G. (1994). Clomipramine ameliorates adventitious movements and compulsions in prepubertal boys with autistic disorder and severe mental retardation. Neurology, 44, 1309-1312.
* Brodkin, E. S., McDouble, C. J., Naylor, S. T., Cohen, D. J., & Price, L. H. (1997). Clomipramine in adults with pervasive developmental disorders: A prospective open-label investigation. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 7, 109-121.
* Bromfield, R. (2000). Its the tortoises race: Long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy with a high-functioning autistic adolescent. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 20, 732-745.
* Bryson, S. (1997). Epidemiology of autism: Overview and issues outstanding. In D. J. Cohen & F. R. Volkmar (Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders (2nd ed., pp. 41-46). New York: Wiley.
* Bryson, S. E., Clark, B. S., & Smith, I. M. (1988). First report of a Canadian epidemiological study of autistic syndromes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 29, 433-445.
* Bunge, M. (1984). What is pseudoscience? Skeptical Inquirer, 9, 36-46.
* Burgess, C. A., Kirsch, I., Shane, H., Niederauer, K. L., Graham, S. M., & Bacon, A. (1998). Facilitated communication as an ideomotor response. Psychological Science, 9, 71-74.
* Campbell, M., Armenteros, J. L., Malone, R. P., Adams, P. B., Eisenberg, Z. W., & Overall, J. E. (1997). Neuroleptic-related dyskinesias in autistic children: A prospective, longitudinal study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 835-843.
* Campbell, M., Schopler, E., Cueva, J. E., & Hallin, A. (1996). Treatment of autistic disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 134-143.
* Case-Smith, J., & Bryan, T. (1999). The effects of occupational therapy with sensory integration emphasis on preschool-age children with autism. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53, 489-497.
* Chez, M. G., & Buchanan, C. P. (2000). Reply to B. Rimlands "Comments on ‘Secretin and autism: A two-part clinical investigation. " Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 30, 97-98.
* Chez, M. G., Buchanan, C. P., Bagan, B. T., Hammer, M. S., McCarthy, K. S., Ovrutskaya, I., Nowinski, C. V., & Cohen, Z. S. (2000). Secretin and autism: A two-part clinical investigation. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 30, 87-94.
* Cook, E. H., Rowlett, R., Jaselskis, C., & Leventhal, B. L. (1992). Fluoxetine treatment of children and adults with autistic disorder and mental retardation. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 739-745.
* Cooper, J. O., Heron, T., & Heward, W. (1989). Applied behavior analysis. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
* Dales, L., Hammer, S. J., & Smith, N. J. (2001). Time trends in autism and in MMR immunization coverage in California. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 1183-1185.
* Darnton, N. (1990, September 10). Beno Brutalheim? Newsweek, 111(11), 59-60.
* Dawson, G., & Osterling, J. (1997). Early intervention in autism: Effectiveness and common elements of current approaches. In M. Guralnick (Ed.), The effectiveness of early intervention (pp. 307-326). Baltimore: Brookes.
* Dawson, G., & Watling, R. (2000). Interventions to facilitate auditory, visual, and motor integration in autism: A review of the evidence. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 30, 415-421.
* DeLong, G. R., Teague, L. A., & Kamran, M. M. (1998). Effects of fluoxetine treatment in young children with idiopathic autism. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 40, 551-562.
* Denson, J. F., Nuthall, G. A., Bushnell, J., & Horn, J. (1989). Effectiveness of a sensory integrative therapy program for children with perceptual-motor deficits. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 221-229.
* Deutsch, R. M., & Morrill, J. S. (1993). Realities of nutrition. Palo Alto, CA: Bull Publishing.
* Dunn-Geier, J., Ho H. H., Auersperg, E., Doyle, D., Eaves, L., Matsuba, C., Orrbine, E., Pham, B., & Whiting, S. (2000). Effect of secretin on children with autism: A randomized controlled trial. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 42, 796-802.
* Edelson, S. M. (2001). Disappointed [Letter to the editor]. Priorities for Health, 13(1), 4-6.
* Edelson, S. M., Arin, D., Bauman, M., Lukas, S. E., Rudy, J. H., Sholar, M., Rimland, B. (1999). Auditory integration training: A double-blind study of behavioral and electrophysiological effects in people with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14, 73-81.
* Fatemi, S. H., Realmuto, G. M., Khan, L., & Thuras, P. (1998). Fluoxetine in treatment of adolescent patients with autism: A longitudinal open trial. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 28, 303-307.
* Fenske, E. C., Zalenski, S., Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (1985). Age at intervention and treatment outcome for autistic children in a comprehensive intervention program. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 5, 49-58.
* Findling, R. L., Maxwell, K., Scotese-Wojtila, L., & Huang, J. (1997). High-dose pyridoxine and magnesium administration in children with autistic disorder: An absence of salutary effects in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 27, 467-478.
* Folstein, S. E. (1999). Autism. International Review of Psychiatry, 11, 269-278.
* Fombonne, E. (1998). Epidemiology of autism and related conditions. In F. R. Volkmar (Ed.), Autism and pervasive developmental disorders (pp. 32-63). New York: Cambridge University Press.
* Gardner, M. (2000). The brutality of Dr. Bettelheim. Skeptical Inquirer, 24(6), 12-14.
* Gardner, M. (2001). Facilitated communication: A cruel farce. Skeptical Inquirer, 25, 17-19.
* Gillberg, C. (1996). The psychopharmacology of autism and related disorders. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 10, 54-63.
* Gillberg, C., Johansson, M., Steffenburg, S., & Berlin, O. (1997). Auditory integration training in children with autism: Brief report of an open pilot study. Autism, 1, 97-100.
* Gordon, C. T., Rapoport, J. L., Hamburger, S. D., State, R. C., & Mannheim, G. B. (1992). Differential response of seven subjects with autistic disorder to clomipramine and desipramine. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 363-366.
* Gordon, C. T., State, R. C., Nelson, J. E., Hamburger, S. D., & Rapoport, J. L. (1993). A double-blind comparison of clomipramine, desipramine, and placebo in the treatment of autistic disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 441-447.
* Gorman, B. J. (1999). Facilitated communication: Rejected in science, accepted in courtta case study and analysis of the use of FC evidence under Frye and Daubert. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 517-541.
* Green, D. (2001). Autism and "voodoo science" treatments. Priorities for Health, 13(1), 27-32, 69.
* Green, G. (1994). Facilitated communication: Mental miracle or sleight of hand? Skeptic, 2, 68-76.
* Green, G. (1996a). Evaluating claims about treatments for autism. In C. Maurice, G. Green, & S. C. Luce (Eds.), Behavioral intervention for young children with autism: A manual for parents and professionals (pp. 15-28). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
* Green, G. (1996b). Early behavioral intervention for autism: What does research tell us? In C. Maurice, G. Green, & S. C. Luce (Eds.), Behavioral intervention for young children with autism: A manual for parents and professionals (pp. 29-44). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
* Gresham, F. M., Beebe-Frankenberger, M. E., & MacMillan, D. L. (1999). A selective review of treatments for children with autism: Description and methodological considerations. School Psychology Review, 28, 559-576.
* Gresham, F. M., & MacMillan, D. L. (1998). Early intervention project: Can its claims be substantiated and its effects replicated? Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 28, 5-13.
* Harris, S. L., Handleman, J. S., Gordon, R., Kristoff, B., & Fuentes, F. (1991). Changes in cognitive and language functioning of preschool children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 21, 281-290.
* Herbert, J. D. Lilienfeld, S. O., Lohr, J. M., Montgomery, R. W., ODonohue, W. T., Rosen, R. M., & Tolin, D. F. (2000). Science and pseudoscience in the development of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: Implications for clinical psychology. Clinical Psychology Review, 20, 945-971.
* Herbert, J. D., & Sharp, I. R. (2001). Pseudoscientific treatments for autism. Priorities for Health, 13(1), 23-26, 59.
* Hoehn, T. P., & Baumesiter, A. A. (1994). A critique of the application of sensory integration therapy to children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 338-351.
* Horvath, K., Stefanatos, G., Sokolski, K. N., Wachtel, R., Nabors, L., & Tildon, J. T. (1998). Improved social and language skills after secretin administration in patients with autistic spectrum disorders. Journal of the Association for Academic Minority Physicians, 9, 9-15.
* Hoyson, M., Jamieson, B., & Strain, P. S. (1984). Individualized group instruction of normally developing and autistic-like children: The LEAP curriculum model. Journal of the Division of Early Childhood, 8, 157-172.
* Iwasaki, K., & Holm, M. B. (1989). Sensory treatment for the reduction of stereotypic behaviors in persons with severe multiple disabilities. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 9, 170-183.
* Jacobson, J. W., Mulick, J. A., & Green, G. (1998). Cost-benefit estimates for early intensive behavioral intervention for young children with autismtGeneral model and single state case. Behavioral Interventions, 13, 201-226.
* Jacobson, J. W., Mulick, J. A., & Schwartz, A. A. (1995). A history of facilitated communication: Science, pseudoscience, and antiscience: Science working group on facilitated communication. American Psychologist, 50, 750-765.
* Jenkins, J. R., Fewell, R. R., & Harris, S. R. (1984). Comparison of sensory integrative therapy and motor programming. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 221-224.
* Kanner, L. (1946). Autistic disturbances of affective contact. American Journal of Psychiatry, 103, 242-246.
* Kanner, L. (1973). Childhood psychosis: Initial studies and new insights. Washington, DC: V. H. Winston & Sons.
* Kaufman, B. N. (1976). Son rise. New York: Harper & Row.
* Kaye, J. A., Melero-Montes, M., & Jick, H. (2001). Mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: A time trend analysis. British Medical Journal, 322, 460-463.
* King, B. H. (2000). Pharmacological treatment of mood disturbances, aggression, and self-injury in persons with pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 30, 439-445.
* Kirsch, I., & Lynn, S. J. (1999). Automaticity in clinical psychology. American Psychologist, 54, 504-515.
* Kvinsberg, A. M., Reichelt, K. L., Nodland, M., Hoien, T. (1996). Autistic syndromes and diet: A follow-up study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 39, 223-236.
* Lilienfeld, S. O. (1998). Pseudoscience in contemporary clinical psychology: What it is and what we can do about it. The Clinical Psychologist, 51, 3-9.
* Linderman, T. M., & Stewart, K. B. (1999). Sensory integrative-based occupational therapy and functional outcomes in young children with pervasive developmental disorders: A single-subject study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53, 207-213.
* Locascio, J. J., Malone, R. P., Small, A. M., Kafantaris, V., Ernst, M., Lynch, N. S., Overall, J. E., & Campbell, M. (1991). Factors related to haloperidol response and dyskinesias in autistic children. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 27, 119-126.
* Lovaas, O. I. (1981). Teaching developmentally disabled children: The me book. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
* Lovaas, O. I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in young autistic children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 3-9.
* Mahler, M. (1968). On human symbiosis and the vicissitudes of individuation. New York: International Universities Press.
* Manning, A. (1999, August 16). Vaccine-autism link feared. USA Today.
* Marrosu, F., Marrosu, G., Rachel, M. G., & Biggio, G. (1987). Paradoxical reactions elicited by diazepam in children with classic autism. Functional Neurology, 3, 355-361.
* Mason, S. M., & Iwata, B. A. (1991). Artifactual effects of sensory-integrative therapy on self-injurious behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 361-370.
* McCormick, L. H. (1997). Treatment with buspirone in a patient with autism. Archives of Family Medicine, 6, 368-370.
* McDougle, C. J., Holmes, J. P., Carlson, D. C., Pelton, G., Cohen, D. J., & Price, L. H. (1998). A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of risperidone in adults with autistic disorder and other pervasive developmental disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55, 633-641.
* McDougle, C. J., Kresch, L. E., & Posey, D. J. (2000). Repetitive thoughts and behavior in pervasive developmental disorders: Treatment with serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 30, 427-435.
* McDougle, C. J., Naylor, S. T., Cohen, D. J., Volkmar, F. R., Heninger, G. R., & Price, L. H. (1996). A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of fluvoxamine in adults with autistic disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 53, 1001-1008.
* McEachlin, J., Smith, T., & Lovaas, O. I. (1993). Long-term outcome for children with autism who received early intensive behavioral treatment. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97, 359-372.
* Mesibov, G. B. (1993). Treatment outcome is encouraging. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97, 379-380.
* Mudford, O. C. (1995). Review of the gentle teaching data. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99, 345-355.
* Mudford, O. C., Cross, B. A., Breen, S., Cullen, C., Reeves, D., Gould, J., Douglas, J. (2000). Auditory integration training for children with autism: No behavioral benefits detected. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 105, 118-129.
* Mundy, P. (1993). Normal versus high-functioning status in children with autism. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97, 381-384.
* New update. (1999, August). Psychopharmacology Update, 10, 2.
* Owley, T., Steele, E., Corsello, C., Risi, S., McKaig, K., Lord, C., Leventhal, B. L., & Cook, E. H. (1999). A double-blind placebo-controlled trial of secretin for the treatment of autistic disorder. Medscape General Medicine, 1. Retrieved December 6, 2001, from http://www.medscape. com/medscape/GeneralMedicine/journal/1999/v01.n10/ mgm1006.owle/mgm1006.owle-01.html.
* Ozonoff, S., & Cathcart, K. (1998). Effectiveness of a home program intervention for young children with autism. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 28, 25-32.
* Pollak, R. (1997). Creation of Dr. Bettelheim: A biography of Bruno Bettelheim. New York: Simon & Schuster.
* Ratey, J. J., Mikkelsen, E., Chmielinski, H. E. (1989). Buspirone therapy for maladaptive behaviors and anxiety in developmentally disabled persons. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 50, 382-384.
* Realmuto, G. M., August, G. J., & Garfinkel, B. D. (1989). Clinical effect of buspirone in autistic children. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 9, 122-125.
* Reilly, C., Nelson, D. L., & Bundy, A. C. (1984). Sensorimotor versus fine motor activities in eliciting vocalizations in autistic children. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 3, 199-212.
* Rimland, B. (1988). Candida-caused autism? Autism Research Review International Newsletter. Retrieved December 6, 2001, from http://www.autism.com/ari/editorials/candida. html.
* Rimland, B. (1996). Dimethylglycine (DMG), a nontoxic metabolite, and autism. Autism Research Review International. Retrieved December 6, 2001, from http://www. autism.com/ari/editorials/dmg1.html.
* Rimland, B. (1999). The use of secretin in autism: Some preliminary answers. Autism Research Review International Newsletter. Retrieved December 6, 2001, from http:// www.autism.com/ari/editorials/findings.html.
* Rimland, B. (2000, April 26). Do childrens shots invite autism? Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www. latimes.com/archives.
* Rimland, B., & Edelson, S. M. (1994). The effects of auditory integration training on autism. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 5, 16-24.
* Rimland, B., & Edelson, S. M. (1995). Auditory integration training in autism: A pilot study. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 25, 61-70.
* Rodier, P. M. (2000). The early origins of autism. Scientific American, 282, 56-63.
* Rogers, S. J. (1998). Empirically supported comprehensive treatments for young children with autism. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 168-179.
* Rogers, S. J., & DiLalla, D. (1991). A comparative study of a developmentally based preschool curriculum on young children with autism and young children with other disorders of behavior and development. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11, 29-48.
* Rogers, S. J., Herbison, J., Lewis, H., Pantone, J., & Reis, K. (1986). An approach for enhancing the symbolic, communicative, and interpersonal functioning of young children with autism and severe emotional handicaps. Journal of the Division of Early Childhood, 10, 135-148.
* Rogers, S. J., & Lewis, H. (1989). An effective day treatment model for young children with pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 207-214.
* Rogers, S. J., Lewis, H. C., & Reis, K. (1987). An effective procedure for training early special education teams to implement a model program. Journal of the Division of Early Childhood, 11, 180-188.
* Roser, K. (1996). A review of psychoanalytic theory and treatment of childhood autism. Psychoanalytic Review, 83, 325-341.
* Sanchez, L. E., Campbell, M., Small, A. M., Cueva, J. E., Armenteros, J. L., & Adams, P. B. (1996). A pilot study of clomipramine in young autistic children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 537-544.
* Sandler, A. D., Sutton, K. A., DeWeese, J., Girardi, M. A., Sheppard, V., & Bodfish, J. W. (1999). Lack of benefit of a single dose of synthetic human secretin in the treatment of autism and pervasive developmental disorder. New England Journal of Medicine, 341, 1801-1806.
* Schopler, E., Mesibov, G. B., & Baker, A. (1982). Evaluation of treatment for autistic children and their parents. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 21, 262-267.
* Schopler, E., & Reichler, R. J. (1971). Parents as cotherapists in the treatment of psychotic children. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia, 1, 87-102.
* Schopler, E., Reichler, R. J., Bashford, A., Lansing, M. D., Marcus, L. M. (1990). Individualized assessment and treatment for autistic and developmentally disables children (Vol. 1): Psychoeducational profile revised. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
* Schopler, E., Short, A., & Mesibov, G. (1989). Relation of behavioral treatment to "normal functioning": Comments on Lovaas. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 162-164.
* Sheinkopf, S., & Siegel, B. (1998). Home-based behavioral treatment of young children with autism. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 28, 15-23.
* Siegel, B. (1996). The world of the autistic child: Understanding and treating autistic spectrum disorders. New York: Oxford University Press.
* Schreibman, L. (2000). Intensive behavioral/psychoeducational treatments for autism: Research needs and future directions. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 30, 373-378.
* Shermer, M. (1997). Why people believe weird things: Pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time. New York: W. H. Freeman.
* Smith, T. (1996). Are other treatments effective? In C. Maurice, G. Green, & S. C. Luce (Eds.), Behavioral intervention for young children with autism: A manual for parents and professionals (pp. 45-59). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
* Steffenburg, S., & Gillberg, C. (1986). Autism and autistic-like conditions in Swedish rural and urban areas: A population study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 81-87.
* Stehli, A. (1991). The sound of a miracle: A childs triumph over autism. New York: Doubleday.
* Stratton, K., Gable, A., Shetty, P., & McCormick, M. (Eds.) (2001). Immunization safety review: Measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
* Stromland, K., Nordin, V., Miller, M., Akerstrom, B., & Gillberg, C. (1994). Autism in thalidomide embryopathy: A population study. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 36, 351-356.
* Sugiyama, T., & Abe, T. (1989). The prevalence of autism in Nagoya, Japan: A total population study. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 19, 87-96.
* Tolbert, L. C., Haigler, T., Waits, M. M., & Dennis, T. (1993). Brief report: Lack of response in an autistic population to a low dose clinical trial of pyridoxine plus magnesium. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 23, 193-199.
* Trottier, G., Srivastava, L., & Walker, C. D. (1999). Etiology of infantile autism: A review of recent advancements in genetic and neurobiological research. Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience, 24, 103-115.
* Tustin, F. (1981). Autistic states in children. Boston: Routledge.
* Volkmar, F. R., Szatmari, P., & Sparrow, S. S. (1993). Sex differences in pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 23, 579-591.
* Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D. M., Malik, M., Berelowitz, M., Dhillon, A. P., Thomson, M. A., Harvey, P., Valentine, A., Davies, S. E., & Walker-Smith, J. A. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet, 351, 637-641.
* Welch, M. G. (1988). Holding time: How to eliminate conflict, temper tantrums, and sibling rivalry and raise happy, loving, successful children. New York: Simon & Schuster.
* Wheeler, D. L., Jacobson, J. W., Paglieri, R. A., & Schwartz, A. A. (1993). An experimental assessment of facilitated communication. Mental Retardation, 31, 49-59.
* Whiteley, P., Rodgers, J., Savery, D., & Shattock, P. (1999). A gluten-free diet as an intervention for autism and associated spectrum disorders: Preliminary findings. Autism, 3, 45-65.
* Zollweg, W., Palm, D., & Vance, V. (1997). The efficacy of auditory integration training: A double blind study. American Journal of Audiology, 6, 39-47.

You seem to continously misrepresent facts to support your claims. In the UCLA study 46% percent improved so much that they were enrolled i normal 1 grade classes WITHOUT additional support and without thachers being able to point out the treated children, and except for one student that continued to regress, the reminder were placed in settings with various levels of support. A fantastic succes!

Who exactly is fabricating lies and and making fraudulent claims?

It would be good if you actually bothered to readthe article before inserting your foot firmly in your mouth:

Summary of Behavioral Intervention Programs
Several programs utilizing various behavioral and developmental intervention strategies have been shown to yield promising results in the treatment of children with autism. Among the most promising are programs based on the intensive, one-on-one application of applied behavior analysis (ABA). Some proponents of ABA have made sweeping claims about the ability of such programs to "cure" autism that are not supported by the available literature. Other behaviorally based programs (e.g., LEAP, Denver Health Sciences Program, TEACCH) have been less prone to exaggerated claims. However, the available research on these programs is more akin to program evaluations than to traditional studies of treatment efficacy or effectiveness. For example, no studies have employed experimental designs, and none has used objective measures of the full range of symptoms and functional impairments associated with autism. Component analysis studies have not evaluated the specific mechanisms responsible for the programs effects, and no research has compared the relative effectiveness of various behavioral programs.

The evidence is clear. aba is rife with false claims and doubtful conclusions. TEACCH makes true claims and is supported by research such as I quoted in the published article above.

the available research on these programs (including TEACCH) is more akin to program evaluations than to traditional studies of treatment efficacy or effectiveness. For example, no studies have employed experimental designs, and none has used objective measures of the full range of symptoms and functional impairments associated with autism. Component analysis studies have not evaluated the specific mechanisms responsible for the programs effects, and no research has compared the relative effectiveness of various behavioral programs.

It is difficult to justify such assertions in light of the extant scientific literature on ABA programs for autism. Ironically, many of these same authors have been highly critical of the exaggerated claims made for nonbehavioral interventions. Clearly, ABA programs do not possess most of the features of pseudoscience that typify many of the highly dubious treatments for autism. ABA programs are based on well-established theories of learning and emphasize the value of scientific methods in evaluating treatment effects. Nevertheless, given the current state of the science, claims of "cure" and "recovery" from autism produced by ABA are misleading and irresponsible.

Results showed that the preschool children receiving TEACCH-based parent instruction improved significantly more in the areas of imitation, fine-motor, gross-motor, and nonverbal conceptual skills. Furthermore, the treatment group showed an average developmental gain of 9.6 months after the 4-month intervention.