Talk:Son-Rise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Autism  
WikiProject icon Son-Rise is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and Autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Choosing to be autistic[edit]

"Choosing" not to be autistic certainly won't magically make appear the two missing brain structures shown to be missing or altered in autism or make autistics think about people in the same area of the brain that non-autistic people use.

Not sure what the relevance of the above statement is. Son-Rise is a multi faceted program designed to assist in building a child's attention span and communication abilities. Perhaps the emphasis on choice is in reference to the Option Institute and other books written by Barry Kaufman.
Kaufman is on record that if the program is followed faithfully, most children will in fact choose not to be autistic and choose to come out of it. --Bluejay Young 05:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't like explaining it, "choosing not to-be autistic." It's a brain disorder. For example, People can't say, "I choose not to have a cancer."

I believe that autistic behaviors are a way for children with challenges to take care of themselves. The cases where autistic behaviors are reduced (or in rare cases, complete recovery) are similar to the cases where stroke victims regain some or all of their functions. On Wikipedia under "Stroke recovery" it says "The initial severity of impairments and individual characteristics, such as motivation, social support, and learning ability, are key predictors of stroke recovery outcomes." In a similar way, you could say that children can choose to become non-autistic, but this is rare, and the best results are in a non-pressuring environment, where the patient is encouraged to develop a strong internal motivation. Hence the benefit of a program such as Son-Rise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfKevinT (talkcontribs) 18:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes overtime, the autistic child can gain trust and eventually look up and smile at you. Basically, Son-Rise does not use force. So, when the child is ready, (s)he will eventually want to learn the skills, and get out of their "private world." But I don't like saying, "choosing not to-be autistic." I think the wording should be changed in the article. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Annie: I'm not following. Can you please put here the exact text you disagree with from the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the paragraph SandyGeorgia,
The Son-Rise Program is a home-based program for children with autism spectrum disorders and other developmental disabilities. The program emphasizes eye contact, accepting the child without judgment, and engaging the child in a noncoercive way, and it hypothesizes that treated children will decide to become non-autistic. Former advertising executive Barry Neil Kaufman and his wife Samahria Lyte Kaufman developed Son-Rise in the late 1960s and early 1970s while working with their son Raun, who was diagnosed with autism as a toddler, and who is claimed to have gone from being autistic to neurotypical via the treatment.[1]
Although, Bluejay Young claims, Kaufman (don't know which Kaufman he's referring to probally Barry "Bears" Neil) is on some sort of record that if the program is followed faithfully, most children will in fact choose not to be autistic (the text is written above). Whether Bluejay Young means if it's in a book Bears Kaufman wrote, it should be in c|quotes. I already asked the user to reply when he got a chance as well. Thanx! AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me you're inquiring about a talk page post that is a year and a half old, even though the talk comment is not reflected in the article text, so I'm still not seeing the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The cited source (Kaufman 1995) would support the phrase "choosing to be non-autistic" better than it would support the "decide to become non-autistic" in the current article. Please see chapter 6, titled "Raun's Choice"; or see page 56, which says "Observing Raun, we agreed with the assumption that children like him do not relate to people because they choose not to…", or page 164, which says "Had he realized that he had unearthed within himself the power to choose between a secluded autistic womb and the stimulating,…". I don't see a similar use of the word "decide". Perhaps we should change decide to choose in the lead paragraph? Eubulides (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear User: Eubuildes,
I do not know how to follow that reference you told me about. When I clicked on it. I was only able to find multiple stores around the globe with the book. But, I was not able to even search through the book. So, I am not able to find what you are talking about. But, I think the article should not state choose or decide. Because, Son-Rise does not help the kid think, "I have autism and I choose (or decide) not to have autism anymore." It's a neurological disorder where part's of your brain is mixed up. But, Son-Rise gets the child to trust the person by knowing that they are not judged and someone likes what they like. Which is ASD's main core "trusting to want to socialize and communicate." Then, once the child learns to trust the person. They, then smile and make eye contact, because they want to and slowly, by slowly (if they are lucky) recover. They don't choose not to have autism. They choose, to smile, eye contact, play etc. For example, you can't (choose or decide) not to have Anxiety disorder. But, they can choose to listen to the advice about what can help them not be anxious and want to use the advice.
I think we should not cite that context and put "The child will eventually want to look at you, and/or do the given task." So no matter what Bears Kaufman said, in the book. I think we should not sort it. Since it doesn't make sense. I think he could of used a better way of describing it though. Thanx! Please reply back at my talk page! AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Annie, please try to confine your discussions to one place (this page); that will be easier for all involved. Also, Wiki sources don't have to be available online: Eubulides quoted the source above. Whatever we add to an article, it has to be based on the source, and Eubulides has provided what the source states. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

POV[edit]

I see that this article has been marked for "point of view" review. I'm largely responsible for its current revision (as of March 5, 2005), so I would be interested in hearing specific suggestions on how it might be edited to make the point of view more neutral.

Much of the text of the article I moved here from the Autism article. While I kept as much of the original text intact as I could out of respect for the previous author, I did excise or replace some words that struck me as a bit loaded with POV (e.g., changing "polemic" to "book"). On the other hand, a left intact several "scare quotes" (e.g., "real child", "triumph over autism") that might be interpreted as derisive. Is that the POV you find objectionable?

I tried to avoid wading into any of the disputes about whether or not Son-Rise is a cult, whether or not it promotes child abuse, and whether or not it is effective. I don't think statements either way on such questions can exist in an article that is supposed to have a "neutral point of view." In deference to the controversy over whether Raun was really autistic, I left intact the previous author's words "apparently" and "claim" in the History section, and I've modifed the text in the first paragraph to remove any POV about that either.

Although I have some knowledge about and a little experience with Son-Rise (did their 5-day start-up program), and therefore have a POV, I took pains to try to avoid injecting my own opinions, which I would be more than happy to share here on the discussion board (hint: we chose not to pursue Son-Rise).

I'm aware that Son-Rise provokes strong opinions on both sides, and that it would be difficult if not impossible to write an article about it that everyone agrees is unbiased, but it's worth trying.

If there are factual errors in the article, please fix them or point them out.

Thanks,

John

I have no opinion about Son-Rise, and had never heard about it before this article was created. I simply spotted an new article that had been created by an unregistered user. Although all new articles are welcome, new articles by unregistered users can be a way of hiding vandalism from the watchlists. My first reading of the article gave me the impression that this article was created to draw attention to Son-Rise, and I was wary that the article might be a means of drawing internet traffic to their website. The prominence of external links in the body text, and commercial links to Amazon.com were the main reason for this presumption. The notice is an encouragement for the community to reach consensus on this and its realted article. Gareth Hughes 12:29, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia, so please be understanding if I happen to do something out of step with standard Wikipedia practice while I get up to speed. I plead ignorance in advance! Thanks for your explanation of why the article raised a red flag. I see now how your assessment was based more on style than content, and it makes sense. My choice of link styles, incidentally, was modeled after other links I saw (which I now know are nonstandard -- newbie error). It did strike me as ironic, though, that it was flagged for POV, because what prompted me to write the article in the first place was some text about Son-Rise in a subsection of the Autism article that, aside from being structurally awkward (spanning two list items), was decidedly not neutral. Anyway, after reading the guidelines about POV, I decided to replace it with a short single list item linking to a separate page, adding more descriptive text about Son-Rise, and moving the criticism links into the discussion (I see that you restored one of those criticisms to the articles reference section, so I'm deleting the same item from the discussion -- no sense duplicating). I understand that the ideal we strive for here is not absence of POV but a balanced (i.e., neutral) inclusion of the full spectrum of POV. In this case, however, the only POV included was anti-Son-Rise. Ultimately, the article should include both pro and anti perspectives, and I welcome efforts toward that end, but hunting down pro-Son-Rise opinions to balance the anti opinions is a project I don't have time for right now. I have no particular interest in the controversy, so I thought it best to start with a bare descriptive skeleton, and hope that others can provide opinions on both sides. Perhaps that isn't realistic. John Finlayson-Fife 17:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
John, thank you for your comments. I really hope you do understand my actions, and that you know that it's nothing personal about you or the subject of the article. I was hoping that by flagging up that the neutrality of the article needed to be checked some of the contributors to the autism article might review this one. With this discussion, I felt that the best thing to do would be to remove the POV check notice and simply add the article to Category:Autism. It's good to see that you've created an account: I'll drop you the welcome message on your talk page. Gareth Hughes 11:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've moved a few additions to the article into the discussion below, with my comments.

"Similar programs exist which eliminate the huge price tag, the unrealistic claims, and the hard sell approach. As always, parents should investigate thoroughly before investing their child and their money."

      • PRICE: The BHARE Foundation lists the price of several treatments. They list a two day training for parents in the ABA method which costs $1500, a 10 hour treatment of Auditory Integration Therapy (broken up into 20 half hour segments)which costs $1000, and a five day Son-Rise course to train parents that costs $1995 including meals and accomodations.

While I'm personally inclined to agree with much of this, it is not a neutral point of view. Its clear intent is to persuade the reader not to pursue Son-Rise. Same goes for the comment about Raun Kaufman being an "unpleasant young man".

Please, let's limit the article to facts, and keep the opinions in the discussion.

"Since many forms of autism are rooted in neurological hardwiring or biochemical differences, it might not be reasonable to expect such a program to produce a completely 'normal' child."

This is an argument about the effectiveness of the program, which is important to engage in, but as there has been no scientific study of Son-Rise, opinions really belong in the discussion.

"Perhaps the best that such a child could arrive at through Options is the ability to imitate so-called normal behavior."

This statement is more descriptive of therapist-directed inteventions like ABA. Like DIR, Son-Rise is largely child-directed. As such, imitating normal behavior is neither a goal nor a likely point of arrival. Indeed, there's a lot more parent imitating the child going on than the other way around. Jfinlayson 07:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Someone copied a reference from this article into the body of the autism article, with accompanying polemic and another anti-cult link (http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/o/option/oi_statements.htm).

I've explained above why I think such argument belongs here, not there. If someone has a different opinion about where such discussion belongs, let's hear the argument for that. I'm open to persuasion.

Son-Rise is a relatively small, alternative program. There are a many more mainstream therapeutic interventions that deserve more attention in that Autism article. I wrote a section for RDI, because that's the program I'm most familiar with. I'd like to see more sections written by people with more knowledge about other programs.

In the meantime, if someone is on a campaign to discourage people from pursuing Son-Rise for whatever reason, that's fine, but I would suggest that a more effective approach would be to constructively provide some descriptions of more promising alternatives.

John Finlayson-Fife 22:36, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)


I've made some edits to this article after attending training for my own son, and have reviewed several of the prior listings as well. I can certainly state that the atmosphere and the training is not "cult-like", though many of the trainers and therapists obviously feel passionatel about their work, and believe in what they are doing. As for the cost, one can go online and find computer programs, therapists, and etc. that certainly cost as much if not more than the Son-Rise program costs. If one were to sum up the approach, it would be "advanced common sense", in that they take very specific techniques that make sense after reviewing them, which a frustrated, disappointed and angry parent might well not even consider to apply.

User:matthewdkaufman

Report on free lecture[edit]

This change introduced two paragraphs about free lectures that appear to be a personal report. Unfortunately this counts as original research and as such should not appear in Wikipedia. I asked for citations but none have been forthcoming, so I removed the paragraphs. Eubulides 06:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a difficult point. I understand the need for only factual content in wiki, however in cases like this because the Son-Rise program is not supported by any evidence the whole topic becomes contentious. The very first line: Son-Rise is a treatment program for autism is not supported by ANY evidence and in my opinion is untrue. But this is allowed to remain. My criticism was based on my personal experience of attending a recent free lecture in London. As such there is no published article I can cite, however I have worked extensively with Autistic children running day centres, worked as a teacher, studied psychology at degree level and worked within clinical neurophysiology research at London hospitals at Masters Degree level. I felt compelled to add my part as the treatment is very obviously not a 'cure' for the very wide and very different abnormalities seen in AST. The general techniques employed will almost certainly help SOME children on the autistic spectrum disorder, as any child would benefit from intensive tuition. However, the talk greatly exaggerates the potential of the treatment, and bearing in mind the audience is made up of desperate parents, this is highly irresponsible. I hope this is the correct section in wiki for opinions, as it is necessary to be able to give opinions concerning topics such as this. In the meantime I will work on a report for the main page that can be re-worded. Thanks, Jackboy 29

Thanks for the comment. I reworded the lead in an attempt to address the problem that you mentioned with the wording there. If you can find reliable sources to back up the other mentioned points, please feel free to add them. Eubulides 16:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the individual[edit]

How many people who have edited and expressed opinions on this program have run a program for a period of time? or Attended any of the courses or other autism treatment/early behavioural programs? what I find most amusing. Is that with such a diverse population, one program will not be universally greeted in a positive or negative way, it is impossible!. We do not agree on many different issues (politics/religon/fashion/healthcare etc..). If you take onboard the programs goals and it suits your parenting style then it can be a successful tool in helping your Autistic child. I also believe that parents running different programs will and have had success with their own children.If you do not believe in the program then you will lose the energy and enthusiasm to continue with it. I have run a program for a few years and have personally seen great improvments in a lot of areas with my child (I know this is only my POV). Whether or not my child would have had similar, better or worse achievements doing nothing or in another program, no-one can say. All the autistic children I know through the sonm-rise/options approach have progressed at some level. Some make huge progress others make small progress, the spectrum of success also only rates what individual goals different people are aiming at. I have attended the Start-up, Max-Impact, New-frontiers and the Family Intensive week long courses and have a good knowledge of the program. I have also looked at (briefly, not attended any of their courses) TEACHH, Lovaas, RDI, ABA, Growing minds etc... so I know their is a lot of choice out there for people to choose from. Some of the other programs have similarities with aspects of son-rise and some are total opposites. You then have the add ons that can be run along side program like tinted glasses, AIT, Dieting, Vitamins B12, Chelation and Natural oils and local honey......I still think (POV Again!!) that this is the most beneficial for us, as a family (Me, my wife, daughter and autistic son). Just to quickly clear up the expense of attending all the above courses for me and my wife, £0. The fabulous Caudwell charity funded all the week long courses in the UK, thanks to a partnership between them and the son-rise staff. We then used the fundraising pack from Autism treatment center of America, along with a scholarship from the ATCOA and we attended the family intensive week at the institute in USA. We learnt a great deal and saw impressive improvements in our son over the 5 days. From a Happy Son-Rise, DAD (B.Davies) Sorry! for it being a long post:) I just wanted to put my positive and truthful account of running this program, as a lot of people seem to knock it on this page?. I have also met Raun on a number of occasions and I can confirm that he is a genuinely, nice and generous person. Not as this post states( Raun Kaufman being an "unpleasant young man".) One last thing from critisms. The ATCOA is currently having a independant study of Son-Rise by the Lancaster University in UK and I believe I heard a similar study involving an American University (unconfirmed). The sentence about more drawbacks in running a son-rise program. How comes to read it costs 39.00 dollars for a month? also this goes against all the parents I know, have spoken to and keep in touch with. Try reading the messageboard on the son-rise website for FREE and get a FREE 25 min consultation call back with no obligation. Once again it all comes down to the individual and his/her experience of program. User:62.6.149.17 16th December 2007

Bruh.... You are forcing your own beliefs on your kid. Your love is great but misguided. Your kid knows that life is meaningless and we are all going to die, so just do what you like......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bombeen (talkcontribs) 08:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Updating the article[edit]

Thank you for offering to help, really appriciate that. The below like works with regard to the article previously mentioned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/jersey/content/articles/2006/05/03/muratti06_mascot_bertie_feature.shtml

This is a link to the Son Rise sight listing lots of other articles showing parent sucess.

http://www.autismtreatmentcenter.org/contents/reviews_and_articles/articles.php

So just to help me make sure I am clear. I think we both agree that press stories and Documentaries are relavant. So i am hoping you will help me understand how to place them. To me this is fact obsurvations not POV?

Warm regards, Ezrah

Sandy,

I do believe this link is active, maybe I logged the edit incorrectly. I am very new to making contributions so please help me out. Also as I read the guidelines the introduction should be representative of the subject. The Son-Rise program has lots of anecdotal evidence of success and that seems to be worthy of the introduction.

I also added a BBC documentary post that was removed, because of no sighting but its featured and distributed by the people at Son-Rise. I am new to Wikipeidia and trying to contribute in the most productive way I can so I am open to input from you. I looked for a reference or pub date but could not find one. I have the documentary and again its distributed widely by Son-Rise so what is the nest way for something like this to be represented in the article?

Warm regards, Ezrah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrah 001 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the link you listed; there's nothing there. Also, that content wasn't appropriate for the lead. Anecdote is almost never appropriate, but without seeing the source, I can't guide you in how to write something encyclopedic, or in which section to put it. Please use Talk:Son-Rise for further discussion, as my talk page is a very busy place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
As you can see, the problem was you had left off the final "l" in the link. Now that I have the actual link, I'll read it as soon as I have a free moment. Autismtreatmentcenter is not an independent, secondary source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on Autism Treatment Center not being a independant source, but ther sight has several articles from sources that are. I will very much look forward to reading your thoughts once you have a chance to read these submissions. Thank you again, I am very new to this process and trhing to read and learn how to contribute in this type of forum. regards, Ezrah 001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrah 001 (talkcontribs) 23:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I copy edited and cleaned up the article, and read the BBC article; I don't find much that can be used in that article. I added one sentence,[1] which will likely be deleted by someone else because it is anecdotal and highly unscientific. We don't usually report on single cases and use the popular media as a source for articles about medical intervention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree about the "anecdotal and highly unscientific" bit, and I removed the text in question. The article already (and I think rightly so) talks at length about one anecdote, namely the case of Raun Kaufman; adding other anecdotes is a bit much. Let's stick with scientific studies. Eubulides (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There are currently studies that have started to study the program, so once I have that information I will share that. I have also requested copies of Studies already sighted so that more content from them can be included. The BBC did an actual documentary on a family tracing them long term is there a place in the article for that once I get the proper reference information on it? This is also in the category of investigative journalism not just reporting a story. Also since studies are in progress but not completed, information forth coming, and studies are cited, taking out that Son rise is some how resistant to being studied seems to be not accurate.

Regards, Ezrah 001 (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Costs[edit]

Sandy,

The citing around costs of the program seems out of date. This is what I see on the sight referenced. It is very difficult to find out the costs of the different programs as it is not something readily advertised on their website. However, the estimates of the courses are as follow:

$1,995 for the Start-Up Program in the USA $2,385 for the Start-Up Program in the UK $11,500 for the Intensive Program $1,995 for the Maximum Impact Program in the USA $2,385 for the Maximum Impact Program in the UK Phone consultation $550 (50 minutes) though this can vary greatly depending on the professional you talk to. (This information is not correct, consultation prices range from $100 - $260, I know as a client that has used these services) The Institute can also provide information and possibly help to families in regards to financial assistance and fundraising (Kaufman, S. 1998).

Please also consider the organization is a Non Profit and they often offer substancial scholarships. I know in my own experience I could not afford the services on my own so I was given very generous scholarships. So I feel having only the quote that "The National Autistic Society points out the high cost of the program" is not refelctive of all information provided from what must me a credible sources since they are used in the article. So again I am at a loss as to how to best include this in the article. Ezrah 001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrah 001 (talkcontribs) 01:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You can sign your entries by including four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after your posts. What wording do you propose and what is your source? The numbers you cited, wherever you got them, are very high, so the current text seems accurate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, the numbers are on the National Autism web sight. These fees include meals, housing and 5 days of training. Having looked into RDI for example there 2 day workshops were more money than this. So I dont think they are expensive conparitively. I will look for citable material on comparable training programs and costs. But the more important point I think is that the organization is a Non profit that offers scholarships to those in need so they can acess the programs.

This is what the National Autistic society says on the subject. "The Institute can also provide information and possibly help to families in regards to financial assistance and fundraising (Kaufman, S. 1998). There is information on specific UK funding at: www.autismtreatmentcenter.org/ contents/other_sections/uk_funding_available.php. The Options Institute has also written a fundraising pack which has suggestions of how to raise funds locally. You can download the pack from their website at: www.autismtreatmentcenter.org/contents/files/frguide.pdf."

So having that the program is expensive without information on scholarships or there non profit status seems to give a less than accurate presentation of information.

Warm regards, Ezrah 001 (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandy,

I have some new information and a proposed change. I suggest removed the Comment from the National Autism society "The National Autistic Society points out the high cost of the program"

I propose adding a section on costs with this content. Costs The Autism Treatment Center of America is a non profit; this allows them to offer scholarships (Sight The National Autistic Society). The first years costs of Son Rise training would be $5985 (Sandy this is for Start Up, Max Impact and New frontiers this is the training they recommend in the first year) (sight The National Autistic Society and Son Rise web sight) This is low compared to costs of other programs, "Ganz broke down the total costs…behavioral therapies (estimated to cost, on average, more than $29,000 per person per year)". (sighting information, Todd Datz, tdatz@hsph.harvard.edu, (617) 432-3952, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2006-releases/press04252006.html )

I would welcome your feedback and thoughts on this information. As a client of Son Rise I can tell you this program is much less expensive than other programs. As a results of attend all three training classes listed I can tell you I have never meet a person that is paying more to do there Son Rise program than any other. Lots of my fellow students have done other programs or looked into them and this information is consistent with my experience. Its much less expensive to do Son Rise than any other, SO I would very much like to correct this error on the article.

Warm regards, Ezrah 001 (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at these policy pages: WP:OR (specifically WP:SYN) and WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE). They might help you understand that we can't do analysis or synthesis on Wikipedia and we briefly summarize the relevant points. The sources say the costs are high; we don't compare them to other programs unless a reliable source does that. I might have missed it, but I don't think the Harvard press release discusses Son-Rise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandy I get all that but I feel its presented as a fact when it is not. I am going to put some facts into play in the article regarding costs.

Thank you Ezrah 001 (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The current text is an accurate representation of the source (that NAS points out the high cost), avoiding synthesis and undue weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The Harvard press release talks about Ganz 2007, but that doesn't mention Son-Rise either, so I'm not sure how it would be relevant. Here's the full citation: Ganz ML (2007). "The lifetime distribution of the incremental societal costs of autism". Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 161 (4): 343–9. PMID 17404130. Lay summaryHarvard School of Public Health (2006-04-25). 
  • I found one not-that-reliable source saying that Son-Rise costs ₤10,000/year in Britain.[2] I found no high-quality work on the relative costs of programs.
Eubulides (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The text you inserted includes original research and synthesis not supported by the cite given (comparison of costs),[3] introduces an unnecessary section heading, and needs to be copyedited. Something like this might be acceptable, but is still bordering on synthesis by comparing overall costs of other autism programs to Son-Rise, which doesn't encompass the treatment covered in the Harvard figures:

The Autism Treatment Center of America offers scholarships. Their first years costs of Son-Rise training are $5985 for three week-long training programs. Other programs to treat autism are "estimated to cost, on average, more than $29,000 per person per year".[4]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, that text doesn't sound right either. Here are some other (unreliable) sources that run counter to the impression given by that text. "Son-Rise is expensive, and of all of the developmental therapies it is the most demanding." [5] "Ms. Burton, 'a single mother who gave up work to care for Ruari full-time,' was able to bring Ruari to the Massachusetts center thanks to funds (approximately $16,768.79) raised by her community.… I am wondering why stories about an autism family and the Autism Treatment Center of America seem always to be accompanied by a request for donations, in not small amounts."[6] "We need to raise ₤30,000 per year to finance Coll's [Son-Rise] treatment programme." [7] It does appear that the inserted text does not tell the whole story about Son-Rise's costs. We'd need a reliable source to back up the impression that Son-Rise is cheaper than the alternatives; this is not research that Wikipedia editors should be doing themselves. Eubulides (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been seeking information on procing of programs and have a request into Autims speaks for such information. I am hoping this will bring better results.

I hope at this point we can all agree that Son Rise is not unusually expensive. With regard to stories, I think people that are fund raising tend to do stories on the program. I also think they are fund raising for long term program costs. All I can tell you is my experience is like what I lised above and will continue to research sources on costs. This seems like a incorrect fact that seems to be perpetuated by speculation like from articles like you mention. If we are going to have information on costs, lets do it based on fact not what others have fund raised in the name of doing a Son Rise program.

So for now I would like to see the removal of the coment that the program is expensive and as soon as I have information will keep submitting it.

Warm regards,

Ezrah 001 (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ezrah, we don't agree on how to present original research or synthesis; we present what reliable sources say, subject to WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I concur with Eubulides that there are problems even with the sample I gave you to demonstrate how to better clean up your proposed text. Without a reliable source specifically comparing Son-Rise costs to other programs, the entire discussion of costs is original research and synthesis. Editing Wikipedia when you are new can be hard, because you may want to say things in the article that you believe to be true, but if reliable sources haven't published those arguments, we can't use them. The current text is an accurate reflection of a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Ezrah 001, I've reinstated the cited text you removed while copyediting and refining the reference formatting.[8] The text which you deleted is well-cited to a reliable source and is supported by other sources; please don't remove such text without developing consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I respectfully disagree. This same source lists the costs of the program clearly and other references show that other therapies are more expensive than Son Rise. http://www.fightingautism.org/clock/

What is meant by U.S. Annual Economic Cost? while the annual cost of education of a child with autism is estimated at $40,000. Typically a child with autism requires specialized medical treatment, which is an additional expense. Therefore, $30,000 per child with autism is an under estimate. Some parents report spending $65,000 per year.

________________________________________________________

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2006-releases/press04252006.html

Contact: Todd Datz tdatz@hsph.harvard.edu (617) 432-3952 Harvard School of Public Health 677 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115

Ganz broke down the total costs…behavioral therapies (estimated to cost, on average, more than $29,000 per person per year) and direct non-medical costs, such as special education, camps, and child care (estimated to annually cost more than $38,000 for those with lower levels of disability and more than $43,000 for those with higher levels).

The same sighting also source also says, The Institute can also provide information and possibly help to families in regards to financial assistance

The same sight has a pros sestion but you all have only included excerpts from the cons section. One of the biggest advantages reported by parents doing the Program is the amount of productive and positive time they can spend with their child (Jordan and Powell 1993). Williams (2004) carried out a survey on parents doing the Program, and many noted that the family generally felt more positive and interaction amongst the whole family had improved since doing the Program (Williams 2004). The Program shares a number of features with other autism-specific programs, particularly the environmental and sensory impact and the need to develop empathy for the way the child sees the world. However, possibly the most striking feature of the Program, is the huge amount of one-to-one intervention the child can receive on a daily basis. There is research to support that such huge levels of intensive interaction can encourage development in the child, though this is not specifically in regards to Son-Rise (Jordan and Powell 1993).

Why is non of the above in the article? I am hoping to help create more balances article. I will seek the help of a Wipedia mentor to help with this. In the mean time I would appreciate your helping balance the article. When I read this there is much that I simply don't recognise as the program and services I personally know. The reality is a far cry from what is on this sight from my perspective.

Warm regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrah 001 (talkcontribs) 20:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Harvard press release talks about Ganz 2007, but that doesn't mention Son-Rise either, so I'm not sure how it would be relevant. Here's the full citation: Ganz ML (2007). "The lifetime distribution of the incremental societal costs of autism". Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 161 (4): 343–9. PMID 17404130. Lay summary – Harvard School of Public Health (2006-04-25). I found one not-that-reliable source saying that Son-Rise costs ₤10,000/year in Britain.[2] I found no high-quality work on the relative costs of programs. Eubulides (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Eubilides, ₤10,000/year is about 5k USD, so that would be supportive of the above figures give by other sources, and again I know I am new but if the issue of cost is brought up, and Son-Rise being expensive, that is comparative in nature. So a Study documenting the costs of ABA seems relevant, see above, especially since it lists costs per person trained, which the Son-Rise information is in the same format. Scholarships offered by son rise are also well documented, they offer them on there web sight and through affiliations, but this is not in the article. When I think about readers of the article cost of services seems relevant.
Warm regards, Ezrah 001 (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ezrah 001, when you get a chance, can you read through WP:TALK about how to indent and thread your responses by using colons? Your long, unindented threads can be hard to follow :-) Also, today is April Fools and it is a very high vandalism day on Wikipedia, so not the best day for responses to very long posts; you might want to hold off on voluminous posts for a few days, since the articles that Eubulides and I follow are getting hit with a lot of vandalism today, and we're both going to be very busy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the quote that I felt was realvant, Ganz broke down the total costs…behavioral therapies (estimated to cost, on average, more than $29,000 per person per year) Ezrah 001 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

₤10,000/year is about $20,000/year at today's exchange rates. There was another source talking about "₤30,000 per year", which is about $60,000/year. It sounds like there are widely different prices (possibly depending on whether one has a scholarship; but Son-Rise is not the only program offering scholarships). We can't just take one of these (unreliable) sources and give that as the price. It's better to not mention cost at all, if we can't find reliable sources about cost. The Ganz study is reliable but it does not talk about Son-Rise at all, so I don't see how it's relevant here. Eubulides (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Draft replacement for "Treatment and philosophy" through "External links"[edit]

In looking through the above comments and at the text, I see the following points:

  • The text says "The National Autistic Society points out the high cost of the program" but the cited source does not say the cost is high, so at least the word "high" should be removed.
  • Given the above evidence on costs, I'd say the evidence is equivocal as to whether they're higher or lower than the competition. The simplest thing to do would be to remove discussion about costs until we get better sources.
  • There's no need to mention "The National Autistic Society" in the main text; this fluffs up that part of the text. The citation can give details about the source; there's no need to mention it in the main text.
  • Having a section called "Criticism" is not very Wikipedia-like. It's better to discuss each point in turn rather than having a "pro" section and a "con" section.
  • Questions have been raised about whether Raun Kaufman was actually autistic before being treated.
  • Some of the citations are poorly cited and are old sources that are not easily available. I suspect they're being cited only because the NAS web page cites them, and that no Wikipedia editor has ever read them. They're not needed; let's remove them.
  • Son-Rise#External links should point just to the Son-Rise center. The BBC interview is not really a suitable external link as per WP:LINKS.
  • In summary, I propose replacing Autism#Treatment and philosophy through Autism#External links with the following text. Eubulides (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Draft replacement starts here.


Treatment and philosophy[edit]

At the Autism Treatment Center of America, parents are given training to help them encourage their child to interact and socialize more effectively. The acquisition of developmental skills plays an important role in the program, however the priority in a Son-Rise Program is encouraging socialization and communication abilities. While there are other programs that emphasize a play-based therapy, such as Dr. Stanley Greenspan's DIR/Floortime model, one of the distinguishing features of Son-Rise is its emphasis on loving and accepting the child just as he or she is, with the idea that the autistic child "senses" your attitude through your voice, body language and non-verbal behavior.

The Son-Rise philosophy states that if you approach the child with a positive, loving attitude, the child is more likely to interact than if you engage with a sense of underlying anger, despair, hopelessness and desperation. The idea is based upon the belief that any child, even an autistic child, is more likely to thrive by means of interaction and play with others who are having fun with the child and enjoying what the child enjoys. As the child engages with parent or caregiver, a constant attempt is made to expand the child's interest beyond "self-stimulating" behaviors.

Many parents struggle to accept their child's diagnosis and the unique behaviors of autism. It is not uncommon for parents to experience guilt or fears for the future. Son-Rise says that, by offering parents support in these areas, parents are able to attain a greater degree of comfort playing with their child and in their day-to-day life with their child. They say this attitude, combined with specific play strategies, gives parents a greater opportunity to encourage more of the type of interactions that they wish to create with their child.

Son-Rise is volunteer-intensive with high turnover, and may require parents to fill in staffing gaps.[1]

Effectiveness[edit]

Son-Rise has never allowed formal scientific evaluations of effectiveness.[1] Questions have been raised whether Raun Kaufman was actually autistic before being treated.[2] There are no documented normalizations with older children, and it may be that success "depends on a certain level of intellectual potential".[3] Some professionals have questioned the emphasis placed on eye contact and its potential aversiveness for some children.[1]

The consensus within the medical community is that there is no cure for autism and only a very few treatments have empirical evidence for improvements in symptoms.[2][4] A 2003 study found that involvement with the Son-Rise Program led to more drawbacks than benefits for the involved families over time, although family stress levels did not rise in all cases.[5] A 2006 study found that the Son-Rise Program is not always implemented as it is typically described in the literature, which suggests it will be difficult to evaluate its efficacy.[6]

External links[edit]


Draft replacement ends here.

Comments on draft replacement[edit]

Looks good, agree with all, have never liked citing NAS and don't like the quality of those sources; sorry I can't help much, but Ima Hogg will keep me busy for April Fools Day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Except, expand that first ref that is only a [1]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Eubulides, and Sandy. Son Rise has had a new book published on treatment and has a Developmental model on its web sight that is the most up to date on the subject. Would http://www.optionindigo.com/product.aspx?68 and http://www.autismtreatmentcenter.org/contents/other_sections/developmental_model.php be considered a source that meets teh standards Verifiability, Reliable sources I agree lets in some ways start fresh. Sandy I do belive you are looking to hold the article to a standard if you will. I am goign to take a few days and gather what I feel is the most up to date information and then get some consensous and then move ahead from there.

Warm regards, Ezrah 001 (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As there seems to be agreement on the change proposed above, I installed it. Eubulides (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The book seems like a bit of a spinoff and would be less reliable about Son-Rise itself. The Developmental Model PDF file looks like a good source for Son-Rise#Treatment and philosophy. It's freely available online, which is a plus. Eubulides (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose deleting this, http://www.autismtreatmentcenter.org/cgi-local/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=36&topic=2 this is just one study that is currently being done and since the information is on there web sight they must be not only allowing research but helping facilitate it. Ezrah 001 (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear that that study is researching the effectiveness of Son-Rise on the child with ASD; it appears to be looking more about the effect of Son-Rise on a non-ASD sibling, which isn't the same thing. Also, blog entries aren't that reliable; we need better sources. Eubulides (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi all! I just wanted to add a couple quick notes, since I've read the full text of a couple of the cited studies/books. In Williams/Wishart (2003), under Methods, it states "Three separate questionnaires were sent out over a one-year period to families who had attended an initial SRP 'start-up' group training course in the UK in 1998...Questionnaire 1 was sent to all course participants..." This would clearly indicate the authors were given access by that program to its clients for the purposes of the study, contradicting the cited statement from the NAS website.

Also, even though it was mainly directed at impact on the family, the same study produced the following data: when asked "Overall, how beneficial would you say Son-Rise has been for your child?" the participants responded "16 felt that the programme had been very effective, eight moderately, seven slightly and none (reported) not at all effective".

Okay, and I think I've figured out how citing works, to a degree. So the Herbert/Sharp/Guadiano (2002) then refers to Siegel (1996) for the part about questioning if this person was actually autistic. My question is: Siegel is the original source, and her book was published by a reputable publishing house, but her statements are clearly biased against "Options" as she calls it, such as "This therapy makes little sense developmentally", then she goes on to inaccurately describe the methodology. In fact, her book takes a somewhat snide, attacking stance against anything she considers "non-mainstream". Under these conditions, can this still be considered a "reliable source"?

Anyway, that's what I came across. If you find this useful and someone wants to take a stab at updating the wording, be my guest, since I'm not sure when I will have the time to propose wording myself. Hope I did this correctly, feel free to let me know what I could have done better! Sdscreenwriter (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Williams & Wishart 2003 (PMID 12787161) did not investigate effectiveness; it investigated (quoting the abstract) "family demographics, patterns of intervention use and perceived family effects". The single question you refer to asked about perceived effectiveness (for the purpose of relating it to family demographics etc.), but this is not the same as effectiveness. This study doesn't contradict the NAS's claim that the Son-Rise program "has never allowed or carried out any formal research on the effectiveness of it".
  • As for whether Raun Kaufman was actually autistic, this is a question that is raised often in less-reliable sources (see, for example, the comments in [9]) and I suspect that Herbert et al. 2002 simply wanted to make the point that it's a serious question; here we are relying on Herbert et al. rather than Siegel partly because Herbert et al. is freely readable but more importantly because it's a more-reliable source and is a review.
Eubulides (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. I have read the Williams studies as well and have copies of the 2003 and 2006 papers. The 2006 paper is titled: "The Son-Rise Program® intervention for autism: Prerequisites for evaluation" and is most certainly research designed to help evaluate the effectiveness of the program. While the study itself is not testing the effectiveness of the son rise program, it is the first step in the process of that research, determining the challenges and prerequisites for any further evaluation. These Williams papers will be cited for sure in any subsequent study of the son rise program.

The paper itself recognizes this is its purpose:

The study described below aimed to identify the profile of children and families involved in the SRP, to establish the typical patterns in intervention use (plus any changes in these over time), and to explore the extent to which low treatment fidelity, concurrent intervention use and concurrent school attendance were likely to present methodological challenges to any future evaluation of the efficacy of the SRP as an intervention for autism. -Autism 10(1) pg 89

It is the first step in the evaluation process and it makes perfect sense that the son rise people would first want to make sure there was an adequate understanding of the challenges facing any studies of the effectiveness of their program.

As such, I think their facilitation of Dr. Williams studies over the course of at least 3 years (2003-2006) clearly refutes the NAS unsourced claim on their website. TacoChuck (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The abstract of Williams 2006 (PMID 16522712) makes it clear that the study did not evaluate effectiveness; it concludes "The study also highlighted methodological challenges likely to be encountered in any future evaluation of this and similar interventions for autism." This supports the NAS's claim that no studies on effectiveness have been done. The NAS article cites Williams's work from 1999 through 2006, as well as other sources about Son-Rise; the author of the NAS article seems to be well versed in this issue and I see no reason to discount that article's claims about this topic. Eubulides (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
However it does contradict the "has never allowed" portion of the statement I think, which is the part I was really speaking about. They allowed research to help determine the effectiveness in the 2006 prerequisites study of Williams and have facilitated it. The blanket claim that they prevent studies on the effectiveness of the program with no sources seems to clearly be a POV issue to me. The NAS article is not authoritative on this issue and states in that same graph "but it is said to have also turned down external researchers' requests as well." Is said by whom? Where? Blog posts are more reliable than that statement.
Also if the Williams papers are not about the effectiveness of the program (which I agree they are not) why are they in the "Effectiveness" section?
Really I think this whole "Effectiveness" section is just the criticisms section with a different name. Given that we may agree there are no significant studies as to the effectiveness of the program I think the whole section could be as follows:
"There are anecdotal reports of success with the Son-Rise program, but no independent, rigorous studies of the effectiveness of the Son-Rise program have been completed."
Provided we find a citation for the anecdotal reports portion. TacoChuck (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Williams 2006 does not contradict the "has never allowed" part, since it did not assess do research on the effectiveness of Son-Rise on autistic children; it simply reanalyzed data taken around 1998, data which were taken for another purpose. This does not demonstrate the Son-Rise program's facilitation of serious research on effectiveness. The NAS article is a source in its own right. It's far more reliable than a blog: the NAS is the premier UK charity for ASD and we should not be second-guessing their information article on Son-Rise unless there are reliable sources to the contrary. In particular, there is no reason to doubt their assertion that Son-Rise has turned down external researchers' requests. Williams 2006 says that it will be difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of Son-Rise, which is certainly relevant to the topic of effectiveness. Given that Son-Rise has six paragraphs that are positive on the program, it doesn't seem out of place to have a couple of paragraphs that have a more-critical eye, particularly given that the program is so controversial, and it would be out of place to condense all the criticism down to a single sentence. If anything, the overall POV in the article is currently biased more for Son-Rise than against it. Eubulides (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You keep moving the goal posts on this one. Now it has to be "serious" research that "assess" the effectiveness, which is not what NAS the source says, it says "on the effectiveness" meaning concerning or about the effectiveness. The 2006 paper, reinterpretation or not, is clearly relevant to the effectiveness of the program as you yourself said and the Son Rise people not only allowed it, but helped facilitate it, that makes the NAS statement false. Further, NAS is not claiming source authority on the "turned down external researchers' requests" but are using "I heard it somewhere pseudo information" "it is said to have..." that would not be allowed here in Wiki, but you want to use it as a reliable source because the NAS engaged in it. And there are not 6 graphs of positive information on the Son-Rise, there are 6 graphs of facts hopefully. Using that for justification of an incorrect and rather damaging statement by NAS is not very helpful.
  • OK, I struck serious and replaced assess with do research on. This doesn't change the essential point.
  • The 2006 paper is relevant to the effectiveness of the program only insofar as it says that nobody has done research on the effectiveness of the program and research would be hard to do. This supports the NAS position; it does not undermine it.
  • The NAS is a reliable source on autism research in the UK. They are well plugged into what happens, and on this topic they are a reliable source.
  • Some facts are more-favorable to Son-Rise, some are less. This does not mean they're not facts, nor does it mean that every paragraph in Son-Rise is equally favorable to Son-Rise. There is a real concern for giving the full story about Son-Rise, both the good and the bad; this concern would not be served by retaining the paragraphs that are full of facts favoring Son-Rise, while pruning away the paragraphs whose facts are less favorable. The Son-Rise story should be told warts and all.
Eubulides (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Then you say "to condense all the criticism down to a single sentence" so as I said, this is really just the criticism section with a new name. Maybe it would be better to have a criticism section in that case, at least people would know what it was and not be mislead into thinking it had something to do with assessing the effectiveness of the program, which none of the criticisms do really. I agree most of the article is very neutral overall, but the "Effectiveness" section just seems like a stretch to put negative things in about the program. TacoChuck (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The topic of effectiveness is an important one, one that naturally comes up in a neutral discussion of Son-Rise. Son-Rise#Effectiveness uses high-quality sources; it is much-better sourced than the rest of the article. If anything, it is the rest of the article, poorly sourced as it is, which needs pruning. The less-well-sourced part of the article is not neutral: it presents the Son-Rise philosophy from the Son-Rise point of view, uncritically. Eubulides (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You didn't reply to my suggestion the section just be called criticisms. You say the research is about the effectiveness of the program, but not enough about the effectiveness of the program that the NAS statement is proven incorrect. I don't see a single statement in this whole section that has anything to do with "evaluating the effectiveness" of the program. TacoChuck (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Not all the critical material is in Son-Rise #Effectiveness; there is one critical sentence in Son-Rise #Treatment and philosophy. Come to think of it, this sentence should be moved from Son-Rise #Effectiveness to Son-Rise #Treatment and philosophy: "Some professionals have questioned the emphasis placed on eye contact and its potential aversiveness for some children."
  • As mentioned earlier, as a rule it's not a good idea to put all the "pro" stuff in one section and all the "con" stuff in another. That's called "forking" and it's undesirable in Wikipedia.
  • The research is about why it's hard to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. This supports the NAS's claim that research on effectiveness hasn't been done. It's quite relevant to effectiveness to say why effectiveness (a very important topic) has not been scientifically evaluated. The other material in the effectiveness section (save for the sentence mentioned in the previous bullet) is all relevant to effectiveness.
Eubulides (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand your point about collecting the criticisms, but it seems to me that has already been done, just with a different section title.
There is a strong correlations between criticisms and the discussion of effectiveness, because most of the criticisms have been about effectiveness. However, they are not the same subject, and not all the critical material is in the effectiveness section, and in the long run it is better for an encyclopedia article to be about the subject, rather than about people's opinions, to avoid problems with WP:FORK. Eubulides (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not clear to me the 2003 Williams paper about the effect on the family is related to the effectiveness of the program.
Effect on the family is an effect. It is just not an effect on the autistic child (which is what one normally would mean by effectiveness of an autism treatment). It's not a great result compared to what people want to know, but it's all we have, and it's better than reporting nothing. Eubulides (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not clear to me how research about the difficulty of evaluating the effectiveness of the program is not research "on" the effectiveness of the program. I agree it is not research "evaluating" the effectiveness, but it is certainly research about or concerning (the definition of 'on' in this context) the effectiveness of the program. TacoChuck (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Normally when people ask "Is this treatment effective?" and you answer "We don't know, because no scientific research has been done on effectiveness." the clear understanding is that the effectiveness isn't known because research hasn't formally investigated it. That is the sense that the NAS is using, and the sense that is intended here. If there is some real confusion about this in the article, please propose some wording to clear it up. Eubulides (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to have some additional contributors. I would also like to note that the quote given is only the first half of the statement. The full statement is “Drawbacks were reported more often than benefits at both time-points. However, it is worth noting that some of the families reporting drawbacks indicated either that these were not severe or that they were implementing the programme in a way which minimized disruption to family life.” Other relevant comments include, “Neither stress nor happiness levels were significantly correlated, positively or negatively, with personal hours of involvement in programme delivery, total hours or duration of intervention. However, increased happiness was related to holding meetings for volunteer helpers” Volunteer meeting is a core part of what I was trained to do as client. So if you are not conducting volunteer meetings you are not running a program as prescribed if you will. I would like the quote amended to be more representative of the findings. I propose we add in the “However, it is worth noting that some of the families reporting drawbacks indicated either that these were not severe or that they were implementing the programme in a way which minimized disruption to family life” Any thoughts? Ezrah 001 (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which quote is being referred to here, but Son-Rise #Effectiveness currently says this: "A 2006 study found that the Son-Rise Program is not always implemented as it is typically described in the literature, which suggests it will be difficult to evaluate its efficacy." This was intended to be a summary of the principal findings of Williams 2006 (PMID 16522712), as reported in its abstract, which are as follows: "Although it proved possible to produce a profile of intervention use, findings indicated that the programme is not always implemented as it is typically described in the literature. The study also highlighted methodological challenges likely to be encountered in any future evaluation of this and similar interventions for autism." It wouldn't be reasonable to reach down into the paper, selecting details that are positive for Son-Rise, if this results in an overall impression that would disagree with what the author of the paper thought was the paper's bottom line. Eubulides (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a few thoughts.

1 if we are to use summary information only how about we draw from the conclusing section of the 2003 study which says. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present study emphasize the need for those supporting families using home-based interventions to consider the needs of the whole family. This may be especially important if there are periods during which the family find the intervention to be less effective. Families embarking on such intensive approaches may also benefit from considering ways in which any disruption to family life can be minimized. 2 I would agree that digging into an article to find contradicting statements seem less than useful. I would also say the researcher says himself that is it "However, it is worth noting that some of the families reporting drawbacks indicated either that these were not severe or that they were implementing the programme in a way which minimized disruption to family life.” These are his words "worthy or noting" not mine. So I do not feel this is digging for contradictory information. 3 This is what Wipedia says about NAS "The National Autistic Society (NAS) is the United Kingdom's most prominent autism-related charity. It states that it exists to champion the rights and interests of all people with autism and to ensure that they and their families receive quality services appropriate to their needs. The NAS launched a "Make School Make Sense" campaign in May 2006 at the Houses of Parliament, with speakers including Jane Asher (who is also president of the charity and takes an active role in its running) and Joshua Muggleton, a speaker and writer on autistic spectrum disorders, disability, and education.

The NAS has a mixed reception among the UK aspergers community. Some feel their work is good, other feel that they cling to old methods and care more about the society than the people they set out to aim." So clearly there are some that question there information assuming we take Wikipedia as a reliable source.Ezrah 001 (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The way an author of a research paper says that something is really worth noting is by putting it in the abstract. The abstract says what's the most essential about the paper, and that is what Son-Rise's wording is currently based on. That being said, it might be reasonable to reach down into an important paper and get important material that's not in the abstract, so long as this is done in a neutral way; that is, not just to select information that's more favorable to Son-Rise. If you think this is a good idea, please propose a specific wording change for Son-Rise.
  • NAS certainly gets criticism, and deserves some of the criticism they get, just as every top-flight organization gets and deserves criticism. This does not change the fact that NAS is the premier UK ASD charity and that their reports are reliable sources in the field of autism.
Eubulides (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I would propose the below statement replace the current one. This takes from the data and reports what the researchers findings were. I feel this is the only way to go since the alternative is to dray from the conclusion which in the article summary which has nothing about the drawbacks it states. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present study emphasize the need for those supporting families using home-based interventions to consider the needs of the whole family. This may be especially important if there are periods during which the family find the intervention to be less effective. Families embarking on such intensive approaches may also benefit from considering ways in which any disruption to family life can be minimized. If we can get consensus for using the conclusion for the basis for a article entry than I have some thoughts there also.
A 2003 study of the effects of the Son-Rise program on the family found that drawbacks were reported more often than benefits with 39% of respondents. Some of the families reporting drawbacks indicated that these were not severe. 19% reported benefits only and another 19% drawbacks and benefits, 19% neither benefits nor drawbacks reported, and the remaining 3% not specified. Ezrah 001 (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not a good summary of Williams & Wishart 2003 (PMID 12787161). The proposed text emphasizes one column from one table of primary results (the column that happens to be most-favorable to Son-Rise), instead of summarizing what the paper says. It ignores the other column of that table and it ignores the other tables. It mischaracterizes one of the numbers (the 39% was not "drawbacks were reported more often than benefits", it was "drawbacks only"). The paper's own summaries of the results do not mention the detailed figures from this particular column. In short, the proposed text is significantly worse than what's in Son-Rise now. Eubulides (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, thank you for the edit and addition of "although family stress levels did not rise in all cases". I believe this fuller statement is more reflective of the research.

Eubulides, I took information from the research that was the sample that was farther along in the study the researcher felt that was more statistically relevant so that is what I sampled. My motivation is to create accuracy and find common ground, which I think, is a shared interest between the two of us. So let me confirm common ground. The study primary intent was not around effectiveness but it is in the effectiveness section as well as above in the main article. I question the need for duplication. I would suggest deleting this second reference or add the one question that was asked around effectiveness, since the study findings are in the effectiveness section of the article. "Overall how beneficial would you say Son-Rise has been for your child?’, and requested to tick ‘not at all’, ‘slightly’, ‘moderately’ or ‘very’. Out of the 31 responses to this question, 16 felt that the programme had been very effective, eight moderately, seven slightly and none not at all effective." Again in an effort to establish common ground if I read this correctly 100% of the respondents felt the program was beneficial for there children or the majority (51%) felt it was very effective. I would welcome thoughts on this and suggested edits from anyone. Ezrah 001 (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Williams & Wishart 2003 (PMID 12787161) is cited twice because effectiveness is summarized in Son-Rise's lead. It is standard and expected for the lead in Wikipedia to summarize the contents of the body (see WP:LEAD); such a summary is a duplication, but it's an expected and ordinary duplication.
  • Williams & Wishart's findings are in the effectiveness section because they explain, in part, why Son-Rise effectiveness has not been the subject of scientific investigation and why it will be hard to do solid research on effectiveness; this is quite relevant to the topic of effectiveness even if it does not settle the issue of whether Son-Rise is effective.
  • Williams & Wishart do not highlight the families' perceptions of the benefits of Son-Rise for the autistic child, and there are good reasons for this. Families' perceptions were solicited only after a year after attending the start-up course. Of the 134 course participants, only 31 returned the one-year questionnaire. It is entirely reasonable to think that parents disappointed in Son-Rise would not bother to open or answer mail about it, and that parents who thought the results were beneficial would be more likely to return the questionnaire. This is a classic example of self-selection, and it's why the paper did not emphasize this raw data; instead, it focused on correlations, which (in some cases) can be done reliably even with self-selected data. Wikipedia editors should not select out raw and biased data, and highlight that data, overriding the judgment of the experts in the field who chose for good reason not to highlight that data.
Eubulides (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Two samples were taken in the first 47 replied and then later 31 replied. So when you make the 134 to 31 comparision who is being selective there? I will seek a third party in an effort to find a middle ground on this topic. Ezrah 001 (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The selection was made in the above proposal, which was to highlight the 31 responses in question. I was merely responding to that proposal: I did not make the selection. Eubulides (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ezrah, I'm sensing that you're not understanding the importance of WP:NPOV in articles, and presenting a balanced and accurate summary of sources, according to WP:UNDUE and avoiding WP:OR. Some time spent in reviewing Wiki policies, and WP:SOAPBOX, may help guide your efforts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it was mentioned above that while the NAS site is referenced several times for critical items, there is no reference to the site for any of the positive items. Since there is no positive content in the entire "Effectiveness" section, I propose the following addition that section:

Although no research currently exists formally evaluating the effectiveness of the Son-Rise Program, the program does involved a very large amount of one-on-one interaction with the child and there is research to show that large amounts of intensive interaction with an Autistic child can have positive impacts. Other research specifically on the Son-Rise program found that the participating families felt more positive overall and that interactions among the family as a whole had improved while using the Son-Rise program.

All sourced to the NAS page about Son-Rise. TacoChuck (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

An addition along those lines would be useful, but it shouldn't be done just by plopping that paragraph into the effectiveness section, because there will be some duplication of text (the existing text already says that no research currently exists, for example). Can you please propose a replacement for Son-Rise#Effectiveness that incorporates the above suggestion, including all the citations for the new stuff? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Draft replacement for "Effectiveness"[edit]

I suggest the below as a replacement for the "Effectiveness" section. It adds only 2 pieces of information from NAS website source. Eubulides asked me to propose the additions in context of the whole section so I have reorganized the section and added the two items in.

I reorganized the whole section to hopefully increase readability and group related items more closely.

I don't agree with the inclusion of most of the items in the section and my including them here can not be viewed as my endorsement of them as being appropriate. I have left every item intact except for a few very tiny changes required for the reorganization to read properly.

I also don't know how to display the footnotes in this suggested replacement so they could be checked to make sure they are pointing to the proper places, although I changed none intentionally and only added ref tags name=NAS to the two facts I added into the section as that was their source for me. TacoChuck (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Draft replacement starts here.


Effectiveness[edit]

The consensus within the medical community is that there is no cure for autism and only a very few treatments have empirical evidence for improvements in symptoms.[2][7] Son-Rise has never allowed formal scientific evaluations of effectiveness.[1] A 2006 study found that the Son-Rise Program is not always implemented as it is typically described in the literature, which suggests it will be difficult to evaluate its efficacy.[6]

The program's huge amount of one-on-one interaction with the child can encourage the child's development, according to research that is not specific to Son-Rise.[1] A 2003 study found that involvement with the Son-Rise Program led to more drawbacks than benefits for the involved families over time, although family stress levels did not rise in all cases.[5] A subsequent analysis by the same researcher found that overall the participating families felt more positive and that interactions among the family as a whole had improved while using the Son-Rise program.[1]

The program presents no documented normalizations with older children, and it may be that its success "depends on a certain level of intellectual potential".[8] Questions have been raised whether Raun Kaufman was actually autistic before being treated.[2] Some professionals have questioned the emphasis placed on eye contact and its potential aversiveness for some children.[1]


Draft replacement ends here.

Effectiveness comments[edit]

Thanks. I edited the above draft as follows:

  • Fix some minor grammar problems.
  • Reword for brevity.
  • Make it easier to move the eye-contact aversiveness topic to the Treatment section, as suggested above.
  • Point out that the research supporting a large amount of interaction is not specific to Son-Rise.

There's still a real problem with the draft though, which I've indicated by striking out the sentence involved. The sentence is:

"A subsequent analysis by the same researcher found that overall the participating families felt more positive and that interactions among the family as a whole had improved while using the Son-Rise program."

Here are some problems with this sentence:

  • It's not the same researcher; the 2003 paper has two authors, the 2004 is by one.
  • It's not clear that the 2004 paper is "subsequent analysis". Without access to that paper it could be that the analysis was done at the same time as the 2003 paper.
  • More important, the 2004 paper's very existence is problematic. The NAS article says "(Williams 2004)", but there is no 2004 paper by Williams in the article's Recommended reading/references section. My guess (but it's just a guess) is that the NAS is trying to refer to Williams's 2006 Ph.D. thesis. My guess (and again, this is just a guess) is that Williams 2006 (PMID 16522712) is the peer-reviewed publishable part of her thesis. But the peer-reviewed part doesn't talk about this issue, which suggests that this part of "(Williams 2004)" (whatever it is) was not considered that notable or reliable or both.
  • The NAS's summary of the mislabeled paper doesn't say that "overall the participating families felt more positive and that interactions among the family as a whole had improved". It merely says that "many" noted an improvement. "Many" does not necessarily mean that all, or even a majority, of the families noted an improvement. Williams & Wishart 2003 (PMID 12787161), based on the same data, reported "involvement led to more drawbacks than benefits for the families over time" in its abstract. I am leery about trying to overturn that conclusion by relying on a summary of a miscited thesis (or whatever it is).

Eubulides (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am also having difficulty finding the 2004 article but have been able to find both the 2003 and 2006. Nas may have been drawing from the 2006 article. If anyone can find the 2004 please advise on a source.
I also agree that the above edit does flow better and seem to have a more representitive wording. There are two current studies being done one is Interventions for children with Autism: Investigating The Son-Rise Program.
Kat Houghton, Charlie Lewis (Lancaster University, UK) and Cynthia Thompson (Northwestern University, USA) and once I get a reliable sourcing on it I will add that to the discussion. Hypothesis Following this theory it was hypothesized that, following an intensive period of Son-Rise Program intervention, children with autism will show an increased preference for social orienting(and possibly joint attention). Discussion These preliminary results suggest that the Son-Rise

Program intervention, as hypothesized, leads to an increase in social orienting and joint attention skills in children with autism. Continued analysis is underway.

This is a study that is based on effectiveness and is being done with the provision of data from Son-Rise. So my point is I wil get the balance of the information needed but at that point a revision of the "Son-Rise has never allowed formal scientific evaluations of effectiveness" statement would warrant review also.Ezrah 001 (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It will be helpful if further reliable sources become available. Eubulides (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced claims[edit]

This series of edits inserted a lot of changes, all unsourced. For now, I'm reverting them; please add sources for claims like that. I see a fact tag in the article, which suggests that some of the claims now in the article should be removed; I'll take a look at that next. Eubulides (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

repetition[edit]

The following two lines are in the article summary at the top, and then are repeated in the effectiveness section.

"A 2003 study found that involvement with the program led to more drawbacks than benefits for the involved families over time,[2] and a 2006 study found that the program is not always implemented as it is typically described in the literature, which suggests it will be difficult to evaluate its efficacy."

It seems to me that repeating these two lines overemphasizes what is actually a healthy scientific skepticism about the program, and in overemphasizing it, actually detracts from the power of that healthy skepticism.

Is there any way to have these two lines in one spot or the other in the article, but not in both? I think this would improve the article.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminady (talkcontribs) 20:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If the wording can be improved, let's do that. We need to bear in mind that WP:LEAD says that the lead is supposed to summarize the body, and is not supposed to introduce new points. Inevitably this means that the lead has to repeat what's in the body, though it obviously need not use the same words. Since the mainstream opinion of Son-Rise is one of healthy scientific skepticism, this needs to be the central point covered in the lead (as per WP:WEIGHT). Eubulides (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Hauser C (2005). "The Son-Rise program". National Autistic Society. Retrieved 2008-03-31. 
  2. ^ a b c d Herbert JD, Sharp IR, Gaudiano BA (2002). "Separating fact from fiction in the etiology and treatment of autism: a scientific review of the evidence". Sci Rev Ment Health Pract. 1 (1): 23–43. 
  3. ^ Jordan R, Powell S (1993). "Reflections of the Option method as a treatment for autism". J Autism Dev Disord. 23 (4): 682–5. doi:10.1007/BF01046111. PMID 8106309. 
  4. ^ Lack of support for interventions:
  5. ^ a b Williams KR, Wishart JG (2003). "The Son-Rise Program intervention for autism: an investigation into family experiences". J Intellect Disabil Res. 47 (4–5): 291–9. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2788.2003.00491.x. PMID 12787161. 
  6. ^ a b Williams KR (2006). "The Son-Rise Program intervention for autism: prerequisites for evaluation". Autism. 10 (1): 86–102. doi:10.1177/1362361306062012. PMID 16522712. 
  7. ^ Lack of support for interventions:
  8. ^ Jordan R, Powell S (1993). "Reflections of the Option method as a treatment for autism". J Autism Dev Disord. 23 (4): 682–5. doi:10.1007/BF01046111. PMID 8106309. 

2012 published results[edit]

207.75.81.12 (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121026125021.htm

This study done by UCDavis MIND Institute seems to vindicate this early intervention therapy. The comments in this talk section refer to the fact that the autistic brain lacks areas non-autistic children have. It has been clear for some time now that epigenetic tagging alters responses within a human-response time frame. Lamarkian inheritance is correct. It is entirely possible that this one-on-one 24-7 therapy erases a 'turned on' tag. Admittedly it is a herculean task to perfom this intensive therapy,and success should not be minimized. I disagree with the description that 'this type of therapy has not been performed before.' Outside manistream successes should be recognized and not minimized for this heart-breaking condition.

History[edit]

Went through reference [5] [1] but could not find anywhere the what editior claim is being said in this article, i.e. "While five clinics throughout New York State described the boy as "socially withdrawn and uncommunicative" in the 1970s, only one clinic confirmed the diagnosis of autism". Only the first part of statement i.e. " Questions have been raised whether Raun Kaufman was actually autistic before being treated. " exists in reference. Could be that this is taken from the reference of the refernce i.e. from Siegle Bryan's book: Siegel, B. (1996). The world of the autistic child: Understanding and treating autistic spectrum disorders. New York: Oxford University Press.

[10] gives some more on the statements of Siegle Bryan's claim.

Naber78 (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Herbert JD, Sharp IR, Gaudiano BA (2002). "Separating fact from fiction in the etiology and treatment of autism: a scientific review of the evidence". Sci Rev Ment Health Pract. 1 (1): 23–43.