di: RPM

[Emily Kearney]

Hi everyone,

I'm a new-ish list subscriber. I'm a BCBA using Direct Instruction with
many of my clients. I've been a big fan for many years and am working to
learn more.

Sorry for the late response to an August 17th post, but I wanted to quote
ASHA's position statement on RPM: "

   1. The scientific validity and reliability of RPM have not been
   demonstrated.
   2. There is no scientific evidence supporting the assertion that
   messages produced using RPM reflect the communication of the person with a
   disability."


While FC and RPM appear to be different topographically, the effect of the
prompting on the person with disabilities is the same. There are many
formats of AAC with a clear research history of effectiveness and no abuse
or author credibility issues for people with intellectual disabilities and
vocal-verbal speech challenges. Of course people can learn to type
independently, but when they do, it's other aspects of the training that
taught the skill, not the FC/RPM. And independent typing means being able
to do it without the facilitator present in the room. I would avoid both at
all costs while still providing my clients with evidence-based
interventions to teach communication.

http://mtb.msu.domains/facilitated-communication/
http://www.baam.emich.edu/baamsciencewatch/baamfcresolutions.htm

https://www.asha.org/policy/ps2018-00351/

https://www.asha.org/policy/ps2018-00352/

Emily Kearney, BCBA, LBA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists-prod.uoregon.edu/pipermail/di/attachments/20180913/b4355b1c/attachment.html>