![]() |
||||||
|
![]() |
|
|
Click here to learn about |
Article 5. Just an Idea!What if the outcomes of every assessment were to include information about how to validate the approaches a team suggests? This section considers that question. For example, Facilitated Communication (FC) is not the only approach in wide-spread, enthusiastic use despite limited evidence of its efficacy. In fact, the use of unproven clinical techniques is often the rule, not the exception in rehabilitation. Here are a few examples of AAC techniques we need to validate: 1.Aided language stimulation. How should you do it? For whom? Under what circumstances? 2. Switch training for various kinds of scanning. When should we begin? How? 3. Teaching someone to use a communication device in the community. Over the past year, the research community responded to what became a critical need to investigate the validity of FC. As a result, clinicians now have protocols that can assist them in determining from whom a message originates during a facilitated interaction. What if the AAC research community validated other approaches? What if AAC "experts" included validation techniques as part of each assessment report? In an article entitled Scientific and Human Integrity, Ann Kaiser says, "First, we must acknowledge that science is a human process that engages the complete human as both researcher and participant." The validation of theory and clinical techniques simply is not a matter of statements of support, whether they be by individuals, associations, or other organizations. It is only through inquiry and evidence that efficacy can be shown. Science is a human process. Assessment teams are in a unique position to encourage "science" by providing ways to validate each recommendation made.
This article appears in ACN Volume 7, # 1. You may order this issue by clicking on Ordering Home Page Online Ordering
|