1. Early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) and naturalist developmental behavioral intervention (NDBI) are behaviorist techniques used to increase socialization and communication, and decrease repetitive and challenging behaviors in preschool age autistic children.
2. The efficacy of these approaches has been called into question due to poor-quality data, small effects, low cost-efficiency, and the evolution of ethical and societal standards.
3. An alternative approach is proposed which focuses on the strengths of prototypical autistic children, such as their non-verbal intelligence, verbal language material access, lateral tutorship, admission to regular daycare centers with parental support, etc.
The article “Should we change targets and methods of early intervention in autism, in favor of a strengths-based education?” by Laurent Mottron is an informative piece that provides an overview of current research on early intervention for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The article presents a critical analysis of existing approaches to early intervention for ASD and proposes an alternative approach based on the strengths of prototypical autistic children.
The article is well written and provides a comprehensive overview of current research on early intervention for ASD. It is clear that the author has conducted extensive research into this topic as they provide detailed information about existing approaches to early intervention for ASD as well as potential alternatives. The article also includes references to relevant studies which adds credibility to the claims made by the author.
However, there are some potential biases present in the article which should be noted. For example, the author does not discuss any potential risks associated with their proposed alternative approach or explore any counterarguments that may exist against it. Additionally, while the author does provide references to relevant studies throughout the article they do not always provide sufficient evidence for their claims or explore both sides equally when discussing existing approaches to early intervention for ASD.
In conclusion, this article provides a comprehensive overview of current research on early intervention for ASD as well as proposing an alternative approach based on the strengths of prototypical autistic children. However, there are some potential biases present in the article which should be noted such as lack of discussion regarding potential risks associated with their proposed alternative approach or exploration of counterarguments against it as well as insufficient evidence provided for certain claims made throughout the article.