Have you heard of this study?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm on another online forum not specific to autism. There's a guy who is claiming there's a "recent" study which showed that babies "diagnosed with autism" between 6 months - 2 years were tested. They just taught the mothers "basic interactive skills" and found an "improvement" in the autism and some lost the autism label/ were "cured" simply by their mothers behaving like mothers.. so in other words, it showed that autism is caused by mothers who do not interact with their children. (Somehow the fathers get off blame-free ).

I googled, and couldn't find it. I want to see it. I usually know about recent research, and this one sounds like it would make some waves so I'm surprised I haven't...so it was probably not peer-reviewed or something (or doesn't exist..). I did ask him for a link, but he hasn't replied (he may not have seen my request though, not sure). So I was wondering if anyone has heard of this study and can provide a link. (I know about refrigerator mother and all that, but this is apparently recent).

I haven't seen it. It sounds like bull poop. If there is a study out there that he is really referencing, he is probably substantially misrepresenting it. Early intervention does not equal normal "mothering," I think that may be what is being discussed, if it is real. In addition, EI doesn't erase the autism so much as it provides a means for communicating in a way the child is more likely to understand and with heavy communication scaffolding. I do not consider these basic mothering/parenting skills.

If there is a study, it probably involves teaching FloorTime type stuff. In addition, just b/c a baby manages to hover around the clinically significant line and then lose a diagnosis, does not mean the diagnosis will not reappear later on when social skill demands increase at a later age. Often little babies have issues that are not clinically significant, but later on get a diagnosis b/c the gap is more evident/clinically significant.

Here's a link to all the stories on Google News about it:
https://news.google.com/news?ncl=dr5Nuj ... CCsQqgIwAA

From what I read, anyone who is interpreting this as "normal mothering," is badly mistaken. This is very intensive. I will be curious to see #1 what happens when/if they track these children over a much longer term, and #2 the results of repeated studies.

I've heard of that finding of early early intervention, but it sounded from what the guy wrote that they did nothing with the babies - they just taught the mothers how to interact with the baby. He was using this as proof that autism isn't a disorder; it is just bad mothering, which those studies don't show (at least not specifically). But I guess that's probably what he's referring to. I was just curious to see it, not that I believe it. Thanks

He is just a hater and distorting things to bolster Team Blame Mommy.

Don't waste your time worrying about it.

Early autism intervention speeds infant development

The way I had heard it, it was basically an early form of Floor Play or ABA; basically, a lot more intense than normal, healthy, parenting. And it was only tested on children already showing signs of autism.

The measures of success are all related to developmental milestones (which, by the way, my son met ALL of), so no one can yet say these kids aren't going to have different ASD issues and indications as they get older.

We've long known that one of the reasons Temple Gradin grew up so successfully was that her mother worked with her extensively. I think all they are proposing to do is to move up the age you start.

Now, I haven't read the original study, but I think people are jumping to some false conclusions. It is easy to assume that there has to be an opposite conclusion, ie something akin to the re-emergence of the refrigerator mother, but I don't think that is true. We all know that raising our children to their best potential requires much, much more from us than is "normal" or "average" or even "best practices" parenting. We all know that it really helps our kids when we prioritize our kids and spend time with them that NO ONE would suggest for an NT child. So, logically, why would it be different in infancy?

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/publish/ne ... itute/9182
I found this link credible.

And here is the link to the actual research paper:
http://www.autismsciencefoundation.org/ ... 202014.pdf

Yes, it is a fairly intense parenting intervention, but not impossible or even excessively demanding. When I was working in community health, I went into homes once or twice a week to help families on challenges they had identified: newcomers had trouble sourcing food, people of other languages had trouble accessing services, parents with kids with disabilities had trouble finding activities and programs. Often we were able to link them to services, but sometimes it was easier to teach them to provide the services themselves. It was easy to encourage parents to read more, make play-doh, talk more, interact more with their children, but sometimes they really didn't know where to start. I remember feeling the same way about disciplining my child on the spectrum. Things that worked with my other children didn't work with her. I had to try some pretty intensive activities. I carried her and talked to her more than I would have if I didn't pick up on her differences. I used some of the floor-time techniques I had studied and I really do think they helped. I also teach a particular form of communication skills and adapted it to her.

So yes, this is a small study, and has been reported in some cases with flawed interpretations. Alleviating delays does not equal curing autism. However, in the first year, helping a child learn to interact and communicate his needs is a very good thing.

Yup, sounds like THAT guy who mentioned it to you is flawed, rather than the study.

It does kind of remind me of the "refrigerator mother theory" initially. However, the scientific process requires us to be open to ideas even if they are uncomfortable.

This study has many weaknesses, most notably the small sample size. I'm sure the authors acknowledge these limits in the actual publication. Unfortunately, loves to make headlines look sensational. Qualifiers are subtly placed in the body.

To me "refrigerator mother" implies interaction/empathy etc well below a typical threshold. If I am understanding correctly, this study is talking about pumping it up well beyond normal levels. This is one aspect of why special training is recommended b/c people tend to raise kids how they were raised or how their peer group does it. It does not imply a person is a refrigerator parent if one cannot figure out to do that without training. In addition the methods recommended involve the parent adjusting to meet the child where he is and customizing the interaction in a way parents of NT kids do not.

In fact, when we were pre-diagnosis the advice I was given by a nurse ran very counter to that. She recommended continuous attempts at engaging in NT play without adaptations. (Specifically just continuing to model NT play to get him to mimic it) I am not saying that none of that should be done, but no one encouraged me to also join him in his type of play. I did it on my own, but I might have emphasized it more if it was known to be a best practice at the time. They emphasized trying to normalize play to such a degree that if I had done that as much as they recommended I would have missed out on bonding with my son over his own interests and making connections that were lower hanging fruits. I think parents would benefit if they were told, it is not only OK, but also helpful.

To me, the benefits of a study like this, is it seems to be a scientific validation of what a lot of us stumbled on by chance. I know I would have benefited if my pediatric office had been aware of this kind of thing. I don't think the correct inference is to assume if a parent does not figure all this out, or follows what he/she gets in the way of more mainstream advice, that somehow that equates to refrigerator mother.