di: RPM

[Jeff Galfond]

Thanks for sharing.  I'm well aware that research for RPM is lacking.
However, I do think there are a lot of misconceptions.  Much like how
guided practice in DI is extended for several days (far past a typical
lesson structure) and then slowly faded, so too are prompts in RPM.
Students eventually are able to communicate without any prompts.  Prompting
serves primarily to compete with self stimulation urges and to help
initiate actions, not to hint at what to do.

I have used RPM successfully with a few students.  I've seen much more
significant results than I used to using discreet trials.  I learned about
RPM from a friend who was taught through this approach.  His name is Ido
Kedar (http://idoinautismland.com).  He communicates independently without
any prompts.  One of my older students is nonverbal as well.  He writes
poetry almost entirely independently (http://samikadah.weebly.com). Over
the course of four years I have faded all prompts except the prompts "what
do you want to say next" to urge him to continue expressing himself and
gestural prompts to urge him to face his iPad and begin writing.  Based on
my experience, I believe this prompt will be no longer needed within 1 - 2
years.

I did not mean to suggest that RPM is a research validated method.
However, I think given the right teacher it's an approach worth more
serious consideration.  We all know about the bias and unreliability of
most commonly excepted education "research."

Thanks,

Jeff

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 11:33 AM Emily Kearney <emilyrkearney at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> di mailing list
> di at lists.uoregon.edu
> https://lists-prod.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/di
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists-prod.uoregon.edu/pipermail/di/attachments/20180915/d6c71b76/attachment.html>