Advertisement

Public Perception of Autism Treatments: The Role of Credibility and Evidence

  • Veronica P. FleuryEmail author
  • Greg Trevors
  • Panayiota Kendeou
OriginalPaper

Abstract

We explored the influence of credibility and evidence on public perceptions of ASD treatments using survey methodology. Participants (N = 379) read texts about different ASD treatments. The text presentation was based on a 2 × 2 within-subjects factorial design with treatment status [evidence based practices (EBP) vs. non-EBP] and source credibility in the text (credible vs. non-credible) as the independent variables. An instructional manipulation condition served as a between subjects factor. Respondents were more familiar with non-EBPs than EBPs, but viewed EBPs as being more credible and were more likely to endorse them compared to pseudoscientific practices. Interactions between source credibility and instructional manipulation were found on ratings of credibility and recommendation of both EBP and non-EBP texts. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

Autism spectrum disorder Evidence-based practices Pseudoscience Public knowledge Knowledge revision Survey 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to gratefully acknowledge assistance provided by the research staff Andrea Boh, Amy Shields, Ashley German, Daniel Earixson, David Edward, Kasey Michel, Keri Mikkelson, Laura Janzen, Leila Jones, Limin Wang, Pang Chaxiong, Reese Butterfuss, Sarah Rosen, and Tara Kulkarni.

Author Contributions

VPF conceived of the original idea for the study. All authors contributed to the study design. VPF lead study planning, training, and supervision of data collection. GT conducted data analyses. All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded through awards granted by the Office of International Initiatives and Relations and the Office for Research and Policy at the College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare they have no conflict of interests.

References

  1. Appel, M., & Mara, M. (2013). The persuasive influence of a fictional character’s trustworthiness. Journal of Communication, 63, 912–932.Google Scholar
  2. Association for Science in Autism Treatment. Retrieved August 3, 2018, from https://www.asatonline.org/.
  3. Bondy, A., & Frost, L. (1994). The picture-exchange communication system. Focus on Autistic Behavior, 9, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braasch, J. L. G., Rouet, J., Vibert, N., & Britt, A. (2012). Readers’ use of source information in text comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 40, 450–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Britt, A., & Aglinksi, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 485–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Earixson, D., & Fleury, V. P. (2018). Fads and facts: Pseudoscientific approaches to “Treating” autism. In Poster presented at the meeting of division for early childhood annual international conference on young children with special needs and their families. Orlando, FLGoogle Scholar
  7. ESSA. (2015–2016). Every student succeeds act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177.Google Scholar
  8. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldman, S., Braasch, J., Wiley, J., Graesser, A., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 356–381.Google Scholar
  10. Haan, P., & Berkey, C. (2002). A study of the believability of the forms of puffery. Journal of Marketing Communications, 8(4), 243–256.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260210162282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanson, E., Kalish, L. A., Bunce, E., Curtis, C., McDaniel, S., Ware, J., & Petry, J. (2007). Use of complementary and alternative medicine among children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders., 37(4), 628–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Horner, R., Carr, E., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IDEA. (2004). Individuals with disabilities education improvement act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.Google Scholar
  14. Jacobson, J. W., Mulick, J. A., & Schwartz, A. A. (1995). A history of facilitated communication: Science, pseudoscience, and antiscience science working group on facilitated communication. American Psychologist, 50(9), 750–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow (Vol. 1). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  16. Kendeou, P., Butterfuss, R., Kim, J. Y. J., & Van Boekel, M. (2018). A three-pronged approach to knowledge revision. Memory & Cognition.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0848-y.Google Scholar
  17. Kobayashi, K. (2014). Students’ consideration of source information during the reading of multiple texts and its effect on intertextual conflict resolution. Instructional Science, 42, 183–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levy, S. E., & Hyman, S. L. (2008). Complementary and alternative medicine treatments for children with autism spectrum disorders. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 17(4), 803–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levy, S. E., Mandell, D. S., Merhar, S., Ittenbach, R. F., & Pinto-Martin, J. A. (2003). Use of complementary and alternative medicine among children recently diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 24(6), 418–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lombardi, D., Seyranian, V., & Sinatra, G. (2014). Source effects and plausibility judgments when reading about climate change. Discourse Processes, 51(1–2), 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCoy, A., Holloway, J., Healy, O., Rispoli, M., & Neely, L. (2016). A systematic review and evaluation of video modeling, role-play and computer-based instruction as social skills interventions for children and adolescents with high-functioning autism. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 3, 48–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McIntyre, N., Mundy, P. C., Solomon, M., Hatt, N. V., Gwaltney, M., Jarrold, W., & Kim, K. (2013). Reading and oral communication in students with ASD. In Paper presented at the international meeting on autism research. San Sebastian, Spain.Google Scholar
  23. National Autism Center. (2009). National standards project findings and conclusions. Randolph, MA: National Autism Center.Google Scholar
  24. Reichow, B., & Volkmar, F. R. (2010). Social skills interventions for individuals with autism: Evaluation for evidence-based practices within a best evidence synthesis framework. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(2), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith, T. (2016). The appeal of unvalidated treatments. In R. M. Foxx & J. A. Mulick (Eds.), Controversial therapies for autism and intellectual disabilities: Fad, fashion, and science in professional practice (pp. 3–16). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Sparks, J., & Rapp, D. (2011). Readers’ reliance on source credibility in the service of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(1), 230–247.Google Scholar
  27. Strømsø, H., Bråten, I., & Britt, A. (2010). Reading multiple texts about climate change: The relationship between memory for sources and text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 20, 192–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Strømsø, H. I., & Bråten, I. (2014). Students’ sourcing while reading and writing from multiple web documents. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 9(02), 92–111.Google Scholar
  29. Travers, J. C., Ayers, K., Simpson, R. L., & Crutchfield, S. (2016). Fad, pseudoscientific, and controversial interventions. In R. Lang, T. Hancock & N. Singh (Eds.), Early intervention for young children with autism spectrum disorder. Evidence-based practices in behavioral health. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. What Works Clearinghouse standards handbook, version 4.0. Retrieved August 3, 2018, https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/wwc_standards_handbook_v4.pdf.
  31. Van Boekel, M., Lassonde, K., O’Brien, E. J., & Kendeou, P. (2017). Source credibility and the processing of refutation texts. Memory & Cognition, 45, 168–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vyse, S. (2016). Where to fads come from? In R. M. Foxx & J. A. Mulick (Eds.), Controversial therapies for autism and intellectual disabilities: Fad, fashion, and science in professional practice (pp. 3–16). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Warren, Z., Veenstra-VanderWeele, J., Stone, W., Bruzek, J. L., Nahmias, A. S., Foss-Feig, J. H., … McPheeters, M. L. (2011). Therapies for children with autism spectrum disorders. Comparative effectiveness review No. 26. (Prepared by the Vanderbilt Evidence-based Practice Center under contract no. 290-02-HHSA-290-2007 -10065-I.) AHRQ publication no. 11-EHC029-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare. Retrieved August 3, 2018, from http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.
  34. Wong, C., Odom, S. L., Hume, K., Cox, A. W., Fettig, A., Kucharczyk, S., … Schultz, T. R. (2014). Evidence-based practice for children, youth, and young adults with autism spectrum disorder. Chapel Hill: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute.Google Scholar
  35. Zimmer, M., Desch, L., Rosen, L. D., Bailey, M. L., Becker, D., Culbert, T. P., … Adams, R. C. (2012). Sensory integration therapies for children with developmental and behavioral disorders. Pediatrics, 129(6), 1186–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Teacher EducationFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational StudiesUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.Educational PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations