This interview covers many of the issues I have with the current approach to #PDA research. There needs to be a debate to establish consensus over its required evidence levels:
researchgate.net/publication/33…
researchgate.net/publication/33…
Some parts of PDA can have good quality research, otehrs like its PDA strategies need RCTs to become widely accepted (i.e. more than carer based research of @ONionsLiz).
link.springer.com/article/10.100…
link.springer.com/article/10.100…
Historically autism has had poor quality research, PDA should not be set at these levels; but should be used to set bench mark for what is good practice by researchers.
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…
PDA is seen as a threat to integrity of Psy-pathology professionals credibility:
thelancet.com/journals/lanch…
thelancet.com/journals/lanch…
"it’s hard not to notice that a very large portion of intervention research is conducted by the same people who designed the interventions, or who provide the intervention... but you do at some point want independent replications."
thinkingautismguide.com/2020/05/confli…
thinkingautismguide.com/2020/05/confli…
This point is equally applicable to PDA research conducted by those in the PDA Development Group, which does include the Help4Psychology research by @DrJudes03 clinic. I.e. they have biases over what PDA is and have designed its research etc etc.
This is particularly an issue considering much pro PDA scholarship ignores divergent/ contradictory literature (including work authored by some PDA supporters):
researchgate.net/publication/33…
researchgate.net/publication/33…
One would have to ask @DrJudes03 is getting speaker fees for her unpublished research. I already know this research in included in @PDASociety training & talking at @Autism conferences; presumably so.
thinkingautismguide.com/2020/05/confli…
thinkingautismguide.com/2020/05/confli…
It is these issues are party why I am unipressed with the Grahame et al response to my work!
I have nothing against researchers/ clinicians earning money from their research etc. It is more that we should be setting higher standards to autism research than we currently do.
There is an issue with blindly accepting research coming out from PDA Development Group. For example they are trying to change PDA criteria to this:
thelancet.com/journals/lanch…
Missing out developmental criteria as features are common in autism.
thelancet.com/journals/lanch…
Missing out developmental criteria as features are common in autism.
Yet we know from their own research main PDA tools are designed to assess for Newson's dx traits:
link.springer.com/article/10.100…
and
link.springer.com/article/10.100…
For a PDA dx to be valid, need to use Newson's PDA criteria over criteria advocated by PDA Development Group.
link.springer.com/article/10.100…
and
link.springer.com/article/10.100…
For a PDA dx to be valid, need to use Newson's PDA criteria over criteria advocated by PDA Development Group.
Same principle applies to any PDA research using the EDA-Q; EDA-QA; DISCO PDA items.
There is a difference in wording between PDA Development Group's PDA dx criteria and Newson's. It matters as they are not always describing the same characteristics.
thelancet.com/journals/lanch…
thelancet.com/journals/lanch…
If you want another example of how PDA Development Group research is biased. It says *everything* that it has taken me to list possibilities of what PDA is and they have not done this themselves!
researchgate.net/publication/33…
and
rationaldemandavoidance.com/2020/03/17/17t…
researchgate.net/publication/33…
and
rationaldemandavoidance.com/2020/03/17/17t…
