• Replies 4 replies
  • Subscribers 25 subscribers
  • Views 2292 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

one-to-one interventions and social interaction

longman

I keep reading about a variety of interventions that are based on a one-to-one interaction between someone on the spectrum and a counsellor. One term I see used in relation to this is "dyadic".

There seems to be an assumption that if progress can be made on a one-to-one basis it resolves the kinds of problems that arise in social interaction and communication where multiples of people are involved.

I was under the impression that one-to-one is usually easier and improves with time and greater understanding. It is easier too to rely on spoken language rather than body language in one-to-one, so that it is easy to develop verbal skills to compensate. My question is whether the skills learned in one-to-one situations can be meaningful or helpful to other kinds of social situation.

I have not seen anything that tackles the wider social integration problem where people on the spectrum have to converse as one of a group of people or in an environment where lots of conversations are ongoing. This applies to lots of social situations including fitting in at work.

Have I misunderstood things, or are people advocating interventions actually claiming that one-to-one will solve anything significantly more than what to expect in a one-to-one dialogue?

Parents

  • Children in a school could be said to have an experience of different people - fellow pupils, teachers, support staff. I'm not clear as to the magic distinction, and how do you know that your method is "digestible"

    By after school I mean transition and beyond into adulthood. You yourself have no personal experience of working with a more mature person. How do you know the method better equips people on the spectrum in adulthood? Short term improvements in a person's experience can be quickly cancelled by bad experiences later.

    By scientific evidence I mean studies of groups of people going through treatment that meet scientific requirements. That's what all medical procedures have to go through.

    Testimonials are meaningless. Go on any double-glazing company website and you will find glowing testimonials from people who have appreciated the services. But you've no way of knowing whether they are talking about the same service, whether they were offered discounts or incentives, or whether they changed their testimonials when things subsequently went wrong (or even that they were actors or relatives of the company's directors).

    The critical issue here is making claims you cannot substantiate. You personally  may believe in it but you are asking parents to invest in this treatment you are promoting based on hearsay, vaguaries and assertions with no validated context. And the fact that professionals declined to comment because they were unfamiliar with the programme or felt it was outside their remit, comes over to me as a tactfully expressed decision to avoid contact with untested claims.

    A lot of parents have spent money on schemes in good faith, but are now watching their children struggle just as hard in the real world years on. For some it might appear to have worked but with autism it is difficult to make comparisons. It might have worked for your child in your view, but that's all you can do here. It is not fair to other parents to make claims about a procedure outside your own direct experience unless you can show that it has scientific credibility. Not everyone can be expected to distinguish the mumbo jumbo of sales and marketing from actual scientific evidence.

Reply

  • Children in a school could be said to have an experience of different people - fellow pupils, teachers, support staff. I'm not clear as to the magic distinction, and how do you know that your method is "digestible"

    By after school I mean transition and beyond into adulthood. You yourself have no personal experience of working with a more mature person. How do you know the method better equips people on the spectrum in adulthood? Short term improvements in a person's experience can be quickly cancelled by bad experiences later.

    By scientific evidence I mean studies of groups of people going through treatment that meet scientific requirements. That's what all medical procedures have to go through.

    Testimonials are meaningless. Go on any double-glazing company website and you will find glowing testimonials from people who have appreciated the services. But you've no way of knowing whether they are talking about the same service, whether they were offered discounts or incentives, or whether they changed their testimonials when things subsequently went wrong (or even that they were actors or relatives of the company's directors).

    The critical issue here is making claims you cannot substantiate. You personally  may believe in it but you are asking parents to invest in this treatment you are promoting based on hearsay, vaguaries and assertions with no validated context. And the fact that professionals declined to comment because they were unfamiliar with the programme or felt it was outside their remit, comes over to me as a tactfully expressed decision to avoid contact with untested claims.

    A lot of parents have spent money on schemes in good faith, but are now watching their children struggle just as hard in the real world years on. For some it might appear to have worked but with autism it is difficult to make comparisons. It might have worked for your child in your view, but that's all you can do here. It is not fair to other parents to make claims about a procedure outside your own direct experience unless you can show that it has scientific credibility. Not everyone can be expected to distinguish the mumbo jumbo of sales and marketing from actual scientific evidence.

Children
No Data