ABA vs TEACCH for children with autism.
There has long been a common view among some researchers and practitioners in autism that ABA and TEACCH are to totally different approaches in education and treatment for young children with autism, and there has been much focus on whats constitutes the best educational approach. And several reports has showed that early and intensive behavioral interventions have a strong research base (National Autism Centre, 2009).
Callahan and colleagues have recently published an article in Journal of Autism and other Developmental Disorders with the purpose to investigate the social validation of the shared evidence-based practices inherent within the ABA and TEACCH approaches. They also seeked to investigate the comprehensiveness and fidelity of these models.
They did get experts to define intervention components within each treatment and witch was “common” for both approaches. Their social validity investigating showed that “the autism treatment components that were determined to be inherent within both the ABA and TEACCH approaches were rated as more socially valid than either approach alone”
They further write that “A preliminary analysis of the interventions representing both models (our ‘‘Both ABA and TEACCH’’ category) demonstrates a balanced variety of recommended activities including both general best practices (e.g., ensuring teachers are knowledgeable, experienced, and qualified in autism) as well as very specific curricula, materials, and techniques (e.g., the use of specialized strategies to teach social skills). The effective implementation of these items, in concert with specific ABA or TEACCH components (based on the skills, experiences, and desires of the parents and professionals implementing them), would arguably result in the most effective outcomes possible“.
This may be an argument for applying eclectic educational approaches, witch lack scientific support. So I do this statement may be somewhat much from investigating social validity….
Related posts: