Risky business: How assumptions about evidence can exclude autistic voices.

IF 5.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL
Autism Pub Date : 2025-04-30 DOI:10.1177/13623613251339006
Schea Fissel Brannick
{"title":"Risky business: How assumptions about evidence can exclude autistic voices.","authors":"Schea Fissel Brannick","doi":"10.1177/13623613251339006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Gestalt Language Development has been proposed as a theoretical foundation for neurodiversity-affirming intervention, yet its adoption remains controversial. Critics cite limited high-quality research as justification for rejecting its use, raising valid concerns about its scientific backing. However, such rejection rests on two assumptions that may lead to risky clinical decisions: (1) that research evidence should be the sole or primary driver of evidence-based practice and (2) that research-backed interventions are inherently neurodiversity-affirming. Using Gestalt Language Development as an example, this letter critiques these assumptions and illustrates how over-reliance on research alone-without integrating clinical expertise and autistic perspectives-can delay meaningful, inclusive care. I argue that centering autistic voices is essential to both neurodiversity-affirming practice and evidence-based decision-making. A more balanced model of evidence-based practice is needed-one that evaluates emerging interventions not only by their research base but also by their alignment with autistic values and their impact in clinical practice.Lay AbstractMany autistic individuals and clinicians find Gestalt Language Development to be a helpful approach for supporting autistic communication. However, some researchers argue that Gestalt Language Development should not be widely used until stronger research evidence is available. This argument introduces two risks. First, it assumes that research is the only kind of evidence that matters-overlooking the value of autistic lived experience and clinical expertise in making good intervention decisions. Second, it assumes that research-based interventions are automatically neurodiversity-affirming, even when they are developed without input from autistic people. This letter argues that excluding autistic voices from intervention decisions is risky. A more balanced approach to evidence-one that includes autistic perspectives, clinical expertise, and research-leads to inclusive, more responsive, and more effective support. While research on Gestalt Language Development is still growing, real-world experiences from autistic people and families offer valuable insight into what works and why it matters.</p>","PeriodicalId":8724,"journal":{"name":"Autism","volume":" ","pages":"13623613251339006"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Autism","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613251339006","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Gestalt Language Development has been proposed as a theoretical foundation for neurodiversity-affirming intervention, yet its adoption remains controversial. Critics cite limited high-quality research as justification for rejecting its use, raising valid concerns about its scientific backing. However, such rejection rests on two assumptions that may lead to risky clinical decisions: (1) that research evidence should be the sole or primary driver of evidence-based practice and (2) that research-backed interventions are inherently neurodiversity-affirming. Using Gestalt Language Development as an example, this letter critiques these assumptions and illustrates how over-reliance on research alone-without integrating clinical expertise and autistic perspectives-can delay meaningful, inclusive care. I argue that centering autistic voices is essential to both neurodiversity-affirming practice and evidence-based decision-making. A more balanced model of evidence-based practice is needed-one that evaluates emerging interventions not only by their research base but also by their alignment with autistic values and their impact in clinical practice.Lay AbstractMany autistic individuals and clinicians find Gestalt Language Development to be a helpful approach for supporting autistic communication. However, some researchers argue that Gestalt Language Development should not be widely used until stronger research evidence is available. This argument introduces two risks. First, it assumes that research is the only kind of evidence that matters-overlooking the value of autistic lived experience and clinical expertise in making good intervention decisions. Second, it assumes that research-based interventions are automatically neurodiversity-affirming, even when they are developed without input from autistic people. This letter argues that excluding autistic voices from intervention decisions is risky. A more balanced approach to evidence-one that includes autistic perspectives, clinical expertise, and research-leads to inclusive, more responsive, and more effective support. While research on Gestalt Language Development is still growing, real-world experiences from autistic people and families offer valuable insight into what works and why it matters.

有风险的生意:关于证据的假设如何排除自闭症的声音。
格式塔语言发展理论被认为是神经多样性干预的理论基础,但其采用仍存在争议。批评者以有限的高质量研究作为拒绝使用它的理由,对其科学依据提出了合理的担忧。然而,这种拒绝基于两个可能导致高风险临床决策的假设:(1)研究证据应该是基于证据的实践的唯一或主要驱动力;(2)研究支持的干预措施本质上是肯定神经多样性的。以格式塔语言发展为例,这封信批评了这些假设,并说明了过度依赖研究本身——没有整合临床专业知识和自闭症的观点——会延迟有意义的、包容性的护理。我认为,集中自闭症患者的声音对于神经多样性的肯定实践和基于证据的决策都是至关重要的。我们需要一种更加平衡的循证实践模式——一种不仅根据其研究基础,而且根据其与自闭症价值观的一致性及其在临床实践中的影响来评估新兴干预措施的模式。许多自闭症患者和临床医生发现格式塔语言发展是一种帮助自闭症患者交流的方法。然而,一些研究人员认为,格式塔语言发展不应该广泛使用,直到有更有力的研究证据。这种观点带来了两个风险。首先,它假设研究是唯一重要的证据——忽视了自闭症患者生活经验和临床专业知识在做出良好干预决策方面的价值。其次,它假设基于研究的干预措施自动肯定了神经多样性,即使它们是在没有自闭症患者参与的情况下开发的。这封信认为,将自闭症患者的声音排除在干预决策之外是有风险的。一种更平衡的证据方法——一种包括自闭症观点、临床专业知识和研究的方法——会带来更包容、更积极和更有效的支持。虽然对格式塔语言发展的研究仍在增长,但来自自闭症患者和家庭的真实经验为我们提供了宝贵的见解,让我们了解什么有效,为什么重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Autism
Autism PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
11.50%
发文量
160
期刊介绍: Autism is a major, peer-reviewed, international journal, published 8 times a year, publishing research of direct and practical relevance to help improve the quality of life for individuals with autism or autism-related disorders. It is interdisciplinary in nature, focusing on research in many areas, including: intervention; diagnosis; training; education; translational issues related to neuroscience, medical and genetic issues of practical import; psychological processes; evaluation of particular therapies; quality of life; family needs; and epidemiological research. Autism provides a major international forum for peer-reviewed research of direct and practical relevance to improving the quality of life for individuals with autism or autism-related disorders. The journal''s success and popularity reflect the recent worldwide growth in the research and understanding of autistic spectrum disorders, and the consequent impact on the provision of treatment and care. Autism is interdisciplinary in nature, focusing on evaluative research in all areas, including: intervention, diagnosis, training, education, neuroscience, psychological processes, evaluation of particular therapies, quality of life issues, family issues and family services, medical and genetic issues, epidemiological research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信