Looking through the links that have referred people to this site, often the search words "ABA vs. RDI" come up. I have a couple of comments on this.
Well, nothing is out there at this time comparing these two approaches. In order to compare the two, you would have to have a set of children in an ABA program that incorporates NONE of the guidelines outlined in RDI, and find a set of children in an RDI program that incorporates NONE of the principles outlined in applied behavior analysis and compare progress and outcomes for both of them. This, in my humble opinion, will never happen. Mostly because it is almost impossible to extricate what is ABA from what is RDI to what is Verbal Behavior to what is natural environment teaching. All programs incorporate behavior principles, whether they care to admit it or not. Positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, chaining, shaping, are intrinsic to good teaching. A good program incorporates all of the aforementioned teaching strategies and embeds the principles of behavior analysis within them, both to teach, monitor, and analyze effectiveness.
Rather than perpetually attempting to disprove the effectiveness of ABA and constantly criticize the flaws of an ABA program, lets take a look at some of the skills that programs based in applied behavior analysis are not as adept in (e.g. relationship development, joint attention, body language) and lets identify programs and strategies that will address some of these concerns. Admittedly, ABA programs usually do not have a goal that targets joint attention. It is neglected, I think mostly because a way to teach it hasn't been analyzed, researched and supported. But that doesn't mean it can't be.
What I would like to see in the searches is rather than "ABA vs. RDI", things like "how to incorporate RDI into an ABA program and measure the effectiveness of strategies outlined in RDI." This is more realistic. Analyze the effectiveness of the strategy. I see RDI as outlining strategies to teach skills that are difficult for children with autism, and for teachers of children with autism, to address. I'm intrigued by some of the strategies, and incorporate them into my home-based programs. The difference is, we measure progress.
How do you measure progress in an RDI program? Identify what the goal is that you want to teach, and measure it. If your outcome is "the use of nodding to communicate assent or agreement non-verbally" now you have an outcome, that can be quantified and measured. How independent in contrived settings? How independent in contrived settings in the community? How independent in novel environments, with novel people, etc. It isn't the programs that are at battle at each other. ABA therapists don't inherently dismiss other programs. Let's just measure it. I would love nothing more than to have another strategy identified as effective to teach some of these challenging skills.
ABA programs should embrace new strategies that show promise for efficacy, and it looks like programs are starting to open their arms to incorporating other strategies from "perceived" opposing domains. But they aren't opposing, which is important to remember. What is important to identify is not the orientation of the creator, but the effectiveness of the strategy.
Welcome
6 comments:
I think that is a much more sensible approach.
Best wishes
Hi Angela,
... we actually have a "joint attention" component built into many of our ABA programs for our son...
There is a body of research that has indicated some concern regarding blending ABA with other programs to arrive at a sort of "ecclectic" intervention approach. We do "blend" approaches naturally in our home life but... Some studies have shown "pure" ABA programs out performing "ecclectic" approaches. From your perspective is there a risk inherent to blending ABA with RDI? Is the primary concern the active measurment of outcomes (aka "goals") for elements of intervention that might be RDI based and the subseguent modification or the RDI based intervention (just as is done ideally within ABA programs) or... is there somethign more going on when "blending" interventions to arrive at an "eclectic" intervention? Are the two at cross purposes or contradictory in approach?
Dave C.
Hi Dave,
I don't see it as a blending of approaches. Applied behavior analysis seeks to analyze and teach behaviors that are socially valid. The eclectic models use different orientations within a model to teach behaviors. I'm not looking at it that way. Rather, I would like programs to take a look at these other programs, like RDI, identify the strategy that they are using to teach a skill, analyze it, and monitor the effectiveness. The principles of behavior are inherent in many of these programs. By calling it something different, like RDI, I think it is damaging to the progress of the child.
I've used RDI strategies, for example, "follow my eyes to the prize". The goal of the program is to teach the child to look at the individuals eyes in order to gain information. I use shaping, reinforcement, and ocrrective feedback during this program, and monitor the progress. I don't see how this strategy for example, is inconsistent with the principles of applied behavior analysis. By exploring other strategies, this is how the program expands.
The problem with eclectic models is that the orientation is inconsistent with the principles of ABA. I don't even know how one would define "pure" ABA.
The risk of adopting an RDI approach is significant. RDI, as an approach, and from my interpretation of the workshops I've attended, is that the focus initially is NOT language development. This of course is a major concern, but I don't see a problem with using some of the strategies Gutstein uses within our programs, as long as they are monitored and implemented with principles consistent with ABA.
I think the orientations are contradictory, which is why I wouldn't advocate embracing the entire RDI approach. However, ABA programs tend to neglect areas of development that RDI touches upon. It is these areas that I think would help to incorporate.
Of course, research is needed...this is just my clinical experience.
Hi Angela,
"The principles of behavior are inherent in many of these programs."
Nice. I see it this way to.
Dave.
Hi Angela,
I think for the purposes of discussing "eclectic" programs, it might be helpful to note the composition in the outcome studies to give some idea. Here's Howard, et. al.
---------------
Intensive behavior analytic treatment (IBT)
25-40 hours/week. 1:1 ratio
Children had 50–100 learning opportunities per hour presented via discrete trial, incidental teaching, and other behavior analytic procedures (see Anderson & Romanczyk, 1999; Green, 1996; Hall, 1997). Instruction occurred during formal, structured sessions as well as less structured situations, such as supervised play dates with
typically developing peers.
Autism educational programming; aka "eclectic"
25-30 hrs./week; 1:1-1:2 ratio
included discrete trial training, Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS; Bondy & Frost, 1994), sensory integration therapy, and activities drawn from the TEACCH model.
Generic educational programming
15 hrs/week; 1:6 ratio
Educational activities were described as ‘‘developmentally appropriate,’’ with an emphasis on exposure to language, play activities, and a variety of sensory experiences. Thirteen of the 16 children in this group also received individual or small group speech and language therapy sessions one to two times weekly from a certified speech and language pathologist.
IBT outperformed both AP and GP groups at followup. Results comparable with Eikeseth, et al. 2002.
From: Howard, J.S., Sparkman, C., Cohen, H. G, & Green, G. (2005). A comparison of intensive behavior analytic and eclectic treatments for young children with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26, 359-383.
http://www.sonoma.edu/cihs/asd/pdf/Howard%20et%20al%202005.pdf
--------------------
That said, as you mentioned, behavior is behavior...if it is assessible in RDI, surely it will be measurable in ABA since both are dependent on observable behavior. Just a matter of defining what is being measured and that the intervention being used is responsible for the change.
Love your blog :-).
Regina F.
I see that this is an older post but felt the need to add my two cents. If the reviews you see on the internet are any indication then I am in the vast minority here, but personally I have some real issues with RDI for the following reasons:
- It's vague. For all the talk in RDI (and there is much of it) about how superior the method is in improving dynamic intelligence and the skills that 'really matter', I feel there is limited follow-up on the actual "HOW", as in, how exactly does RDI work all of these wonders? The target activities seem to involve things like getting the mail or doing dishes with your child - not exactly unheard of revolutionary techniques here.
- It's inaccessible. Parents often have to sign contracts and shell out a great deal of money to even try out this program, especially now that material is only available on their OS.
- It's paperwork intensive. Therapy almost always involves video uploads, edits, and trying to format things to upload to the OS. Not to mention, there can be months of 'education' goals that the parent must complete (this can involve things such as writing essay questions on a video you watched,) before they are even 'allowed' to work with their child on child goals.
- It ignores what may be key areas, such as language, motivation, daily living skills, etc., because these are not 'core' deficits. Fine for a high functioning child, maybe, but how useful is it for a child who cannot speak or dress themselves to spend their therapy time working on following your eye gaze?
- Increasingly, RDI families are being out and out told to fire their ABA / Floortime therapists as RDI does not approve of these therapies. I'm sorry, but to me, asking families to jettison a well-researched therapy to devote everything to RDI...not cool.
- RDI believes it's all about 'guided participation', not motivation. For early learners that aren't interested in much outside of Thomas the Tank engine, throwing out motivation can make getting any kind of participation / compliance very difficult.
- RDI is a trademarked brand, by definition it has an 'owner' (unlike other educational approaches.) Because of this, the owners can more or less mandate what you have to do as a part of your program and make sweeping changes (i.e., charging families $600 a year for the new OS) whenever they want. Reminds me of the old phrase "This is a dictatorship not a democracy."
Having said all that, I think RDI initially (before they shut the iron gates with this new OS,) grew in popularity because teaching social skills to children is so difficult. When we as adults think we are teaching 'social skills', we are generally teaching things that are way too advanced to be carried over, and probably aren't truly appropriate in the world of children anyway (case in point, in the real world children don't stiffly approach one another and recite "Would you like to play a game with me? Yes? Thank you.")
I think initially, RDI was a nice approach for social skills (not a full remediation program,) because it focused on tons and tons of active interaction broken down to the child's level. Through this real life experience, children could pick up the skills they needed in a much more natural way. I think that RDI has strayed from this along the way, unfortunately. My advice to a newbie would be to skip a pricey consultant and just buy the original book.
Post a Comment