Donate

What is the evidence that the extra efforts involved in “doing PT” result in better outcomes for the clients?

by | Apr 17, 2017 | Discussion | 2 comments

Over what timeframes should “PT” and “not-PT” be compared for clients with autism? Clients in Special Education? Clients with no identified disability? Learners in general?

2 Comments

  1. Ryan O
    Ryan O on October 31, 2017 at 9:30 am

    Sounds like this article is worthy of this discussion

    On the Use of Fluency Training in the Behavioral Treatment of Autism: A Commentary
    Megan R Heinicke and James E Carr
    Auburn University
    Linda A LeBlanc and Jamie M Severtson
    Western Michigan University

    Heinicke, M. R., Carr, J. E., LeBlanc, L. A., & Severtson, J. M. (2010). On the Use of Fluency Training in the Behavioral Treatment of Autism: A Commentary. The Behavior Analyst, 33(2), 223–229.

    Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995517/

  2. Carl Binder
    Carl Binder on September 17, 2018 at 12:40 pm

    Of course this implies that Precision teaching is something beyond making instructional decisions using rate of response and the standard celeration chart. That is my definition, but of course people have a whole lot of ideas about timings and going fast and all the rest of the things that have evolved and been discovered using that technology.

    But one can certainly “do PT” badly. On the other hand, if there is any recognition that a) Skinner’s science was built on his measure, rate of response, which he described (truly) as the most sensitive measure we have of response strength/probability, and b) that the standard chart gives us a powerful and relatively simple way to apply this in instruction, then if we are responsive to the data, we certainly ought to be as effective, and probably more effective, than any system that blinds itself by ignoring the time dimension and using a dimensionless quantity like percent correct, or percent of anything, instead. So one can often argue on the basis of the merits. I would also suggest that “the extra effort” is a myth — it’s just different, and hopefully if one is doing old fashioned percent-correct assessment with fluency-blocking discrete trials procedures, one is also working very hand with a lot of effort. I do not see that PT is “extra,” just different from your grandfather’s educational measurement methodology.

Submit a Comment