- Science establishes cause and effect through a process of testing and peer review, but is not perfect and can still reach incorrect conclusions with incomplete information. - A patient in Beijing incorrectly chose antibiotics over traditional Chinese medicine to treat a likely viral infection, showing how skeptical scientific minds can still get it wrong. - When evaluating programs, we should look for instructional techniques backed by established research that actually measures the intended effects and has been tested by independent research. Testimonials alone are not sufficient evidence of a program's effectiveness.

1. Why Science?
• A definition: science is the process of
establishing cause and effect
• Not 100% foolproof
• At its best it recognises and addresses
the possibility of error and
incompleteness
• A community of communicating
practitioners
• The concept of peer-review

2. Smart people can misread cause
and effect:
• Severe sore throat and cough
• Patient (US academic) seen at Beijing hospital
• Offered choice of treatments:
– Erythromycin
– "Chuanbeiye," with the chief ingredients listed as "snake bile,
tendril-leafed fritillary bulb, and almond, etc."
• Patient chose erythromycin despite assurances from
translator that Chuanbeiye always worked for her.
• Patient got better, continued to put his faith in
antiobiotics over traditional Chinese medicine.

3. What’s wrong with above picture?
• Majority of respiratory complaints like
that described by the author are viral,
not bacteriological
• Neither treatment was likely to work
• Moral: skeptical scientific minds, with
incomplete information, can get it
wrong, too.

4. What should we look for?
• Instructional techniques and programs
that correspond with established
understanding of FASD
• Assessment of effects that actually
measure what is being addressed.
• Duration and applicability of effect (not
just the result of cramming a bunch of
information)

5. What should we look for? (2)
• If a program claims to be supported by
research, check that research and desired
effect match.
• If “analog skills” are addressed, look for
research that they have direct bearing on
disability.
– Real analog skill for reading: phonological
processing
– Unsubstantiated analog skill: eye movement
• Program tested by independent research, and
replicated.

6. A little more about peer review
• Good science assumes possibilities of
error, bias, statistical fumbles,
contamination of effect, etc. etc.
• Findings, even if apparently very
compelling, must be subjected to peer
review before submitted to media.
(e.g. “cold fusion”)
• Even with peer review, one study doth
not a conclusion make.

7. DO NOT MAKE MAJOR LIFE
DECISIONS ON THE BASIS
OF THE FINDINGS OF ONE
STUDY!!!!

8. Testimonials
• 1. Authorities:
– Really smart people: Jarvik
– Celebrities: Oprah
– Moral Authorities: Floyd Redcrow
Westerman (?!)
• 2. People just like you…
– really?
– In what respects?

9. Testimonials:
• Consider the logic:
• How many testimonials would it take to show
effectiveness?
– What can you infer from number of testimonial
regarding the ratio of successes to failures
– What worked?
• Can the described effect be compared to
that of other approaches?
• Consider the single-case phenomenon.
– My “argument from Tylenol…”

10. Science is only part of the
picture.
• What else do you need to think about if
the program you’re looking at is
supported by legitimate research
evidence?

11. Does it really match your child’s
needs?
• Beware the program that fixes:
“Autism, LD, NLD, FASD, and ADHD,
and CP.”
– How do you know what your child’s problem
is?
– Assessment (not baseline, but diagnostic)
should be independent of organisation
offering treatment.

12. IF IT SOUNDS TOO GOOD
TO BE TRUE,
…
IT PROBABLY IS.