FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2056498166> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2056498166 endingPage "289" @default.
• W2056498166 startingPage "289" @default.
• W2056498166 abstract "To the Editor.We were surprised that the American Academy of Pediatrics would publish an article with so many inaccuracies.1 Although we don't know about all treatments for autism, we do know about facilitated communication (FC). Our daughter, Sue Rubin, who has autism, started using it in 1991 with physical support at the wrist. After 5 years of fading support, she started typing independently, although she still needs a facilitator nearby to keep her focused. She graduated from high school with honors, got 1370 on the SAT test, and is now a junior at Whittier College, taking 1 class each semester. Our daughter is now able to inhibit a lot of the destructive autistic behaviors that ruled her life, enjoys the friendship of both disabled and nondisabled peers, is successful academically, and lives a full, productive life because of FC.As for the inaccuracies, the facilitator does not “guide” the person's hand movements. He or she offers resistance so that the FC user is moving against, not with, the facilitator's movement. Next, controlled studies do not “demonstrate overwhelmingly that FC is ineffective and that the resultant communications are a product of inadvertent control.” Several studies do show facilitator influence; however, the most extensive study that has been done was by Cardinal et al.2 In that study of 43 subjects, 75% were able to pass information to a naive facilitator. There are also many smaller studies that validate FC. After our reference list is a bibliography of studies that validate FC. To understand how some studies could show that it clearly does not work and others could show that it clearly does work, Biklen and Cardinal compiled and edited Contested Words, Contested Science: Unraveling the Facilitated Communication Controversy.3 In a nutshell, the anti-FC crowd continually tests the hypothesis that facilitator influence is possible, which it certainly is. That does not mean, however, that influence is the only possibility, just as the existence of instances of plagiarism and “cooking” of data in the scientific and medical communities does not mean that all research is invalid. On the other hand, those who have been open to facilitation as an effective method test the hypothesis that valid communication by the FC user is possible, which has also been established in numerous publications. Because the 2 hypotheses are essentially unrelated, it is not surprising to see articles supporting both positions coexisting.The next item we take exception to is “gratuitously raising the hopes of the parents.” Why is it better to dash the hopes of parents? When Sue was 15 months old, the neurologist told us she would never walk. He was wrong, and how helpful was that? Does it help to tell us our children are retarded so we shouldn't offer them academics in school? They have a right to the core curriculum. In Whittier, California, where Sue went to public school, ∼200 children are using FC from preschool to transition, and they are accessing age-appropriate academics. Approximately 30 adults in the agency that supports Sue use FC daily. Our children are able to tell a doctor what hurts, have an accurate vision test, form friendships, and as adults choose what job they would like and where and with whom they would like to live.The last item to which we would like to respond is: “FC has resulted in numerous uncorroborated allegations of sexual and physical abuse against these parents.” The study that we don't see cited is that by Botash et al,4 who found that the percentage of uncorroborated allegations using FC was no different from allegations made by speaking children. In fact, they recommended that people pay attention to allegations made during FC. In our area, because so many children and adults use FC, policies are in place to deal with such allegations." @default.
• W2056498166 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2056498166 creator A5082802430 @default.
• W2056498166 date "2005-07-01" @default.
• W2056498166 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2056498166 title "Response to Scientifically Unsupported and Supported Interventions for Childhood Psychopathology: A Summary" @default.
• W2056498166 cites W1682161023 @default.
• W2056498166 cites W2022068566 @default.
• W2056498166 cites W622102368 @default.
• W2056498166 doi "https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-0713" @default.
• W2056498166 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15995075" @default.
• W2056498166 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W2056498166 type Work @default.
• W2056498166 sameAs 2056498166 @default.
• W2056498166 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W2056498166 countsByYear W20564981662014 @default.
• W2056498166 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2056498166 hasAuthorship W2056498166A5082802430 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConcept C205778803 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConcept C27415008 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConcept C2776831358 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConcept C2777212361 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConcept C2778736484 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConcept C2779033419 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConcept C78458016 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConceptScore W2056498166C118552586 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConceptScore W2056498166C154945302 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConceptScore W2056498166C15744967 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConceptScore W2056498166C205778803 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConceptScore W2056498166C27415008 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConceptScore W2056498166C2776831358 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConceptScore W2056498166C2777212361 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConceptScore W2056498166C2778736484 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConceptScore W2056498166C2779033419 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConceptScore W2056498166C41008148 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConceptScore W2056498166C509550671 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConceptScore W2056498166C71924100 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConceptScore W2056498166C77805123 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConceptScore W2056498166C78458016 @default.
• W2056498166 hasConceptScore W2056498166C86803240 @default.
• W2056498166 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2056498166 hasLocation W20564981661 @default.
• W2056498166 hasLocation W20564981662 @default.
• W2056498166 hasOpenAccess W2056498166 @default.
• W2056498166 hasPrimaryLocation W20564981661 @default.
• W2056498166 hasRelatedWork W1963712858 @default.
• W2056498166 hasRelatedWork W1978678155 @default.
• W2056498166 hasRelatedWork W2103511100 @default.
• W2056498166 hasRelatedWork W2199714476 @default.
• W2056498166 hasRelatedWork W2262003739 @default.
• W2056498166 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2056498166 hasRelatedWork W4214897248 @default.
• W2056498166 hasRelatedWork W4237156129 @default.
• W2056498166 hasRelatedWork W4247305691 @default.
• W2056498166 hasRelatedWork W4249688929 @default.
• W2056498166 hasVolume "116" @default.
• W2056498166 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2056498166 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2056498166 magId "2056498166" @default.
• W2056498166 workType "article" @default.