Suppose I told you that I’ve been working for decades with a different population of language learners: people I’ve identified as "musical language processors." These are kids who pick out tunes on xylophones and chord progressions on pianos before they utter their first words; they learn their first words not from regular spoken language, but from song lyrics. That is, the words they initially tune in to and produce are sung, not spoken. And suppose I also told you that years of clinical experience have absolutely convinced me that the way to boost these kids’ language skills is to start by only singing words; never speaking them, and that speaking words is counter-productive and should be avoided in the initial stages.
Suppose I
also cited for you the existence of adult, self-identified musical language
processors who could tell you about how they learned songs before they learned
speech, how their first language was song, and how, even though now they can
speak fluently, they still translate spoken language into song? Suppose I told
you that I know for sure that I myself am one of these musical language
processors.
Based on
all this, should you believe in the existence of musical language processors?
And should you believe that I’ve come up with the most effective way to help
musical language processors learn language?
No, you
should not.
The field
of psychology has taught us that first-person experiences, eye-witness
experience, self-reports, and memories, including from childhood, are all
unreliable. Practitioners, no matter how experienced we think we are, no matter
how accurate we think our intuitions are, are easily deceived by first-person
experience. Consider the litany of interventions, including in autism, that
practitioners were convinced were successful but that turned out, under
rigorous scientific scrutiny, to be, at best, ineffective, and at worst,
harmful (especially when we include wasted resources and opportunity costs):
facilitated communication, auditory integration therapy, sensory integration—to
name just a few. To those who practiced them, they felt right, made sense, and
looked effective. But rigorous, randomized controlled experiments told us
otherwise.
In
general, only rigorous, randomized controlled experiments can tell us whether our observations, intuitions, memories, and
introspections are accurate. And, as far as I’m concerned, it is in that
arena—the well-controlled empirical arena, the arena in which “empirical data”
actually exists—where “back and forth conversations in which people share
perspectives and assessments of empirical data” are worth having.
If you
want to explore the accuracy of your intuitions about gestalt language
processing, here’s what you could do (or, more ideally, invite an objective
researcher to do):
1.
Recruit a large number of children who meet your proposed criteria for being
stage 1 gestalt language processors—presumably: autism diagnosis plus only
producing echolalia.
2.
Measure baseline language skills via the CASL, CELF, or some other
comprehensive, standardized language measure.
3.
Randomly divide the participants into two subgroups of equal size, a treatment
group and a control group, matched on CASL or CELF scores, age, level of
diagnosed autism, and amount and nature of previous SLP services.
3. Over
an extended, pre-specified period of time, the treatment group receives a
pre-specified schedule and quantity of NLA/GLP-based therapy from SLPs trained
in NLA/GLP-based therapy.
4. Over
an equivalent period of time, on an identical schedule, the control gets an
equal quantity of standard SLP therapy from SLPs who aren’t trained in
NLA/GLP-based therapy and who follow traditional SLP-based protocols.
5. At the
conclusion of this time period, treatment groups and control groups are
reassessed via the CASL or CELF, and the results are compared.
Have you ever considered doing such a study?
x
Posts
9 comments:
The CELF or any standardized test would never pick up on this type of language development. Have you ever heard of lived experiences? Go visit a clinic with SLPs that see gestalt language processors. Go talk to parents of autistic kids and ask them how they developed language. Stop harping on research. It will come in time but not the way you’re proposing. I suggest you spend your time on other endeavors than trying to talk people out of something they know is true and exists.
How did you define your three left brained childrens as left brain? Did you put them through rigorous testing that was longitudinally defined by research? Or did you look at the characteristics they displayed based on other research you knew to be true? Ones lived experience and clinical expertise cannot be simply cast aside as unreliable, it’s why it too is an equal part of evidenced based practice. GLP research is needed but to devalue the other two areas of EBP is irresponsible as well. Theories that were once rejected as fringe science but were eventually accepted as mainstream science include:
Plate tectonics.
The existence of Troy.
Heliocentrism.
Norse colonization of the Americas.
The Big Bang theory.
Helicobacter pylori bacteria as the causative agent of peptic ulcer disease.
A lengthier response is not required as I will be working as a practicing clinician using an individualized care approach that supports the individual and not on wasted conversations such as this.
Mindful that Anonymous 2 doesn't want to waste time on this conversation, my response is for whoever else might be listening in.
1. Plate tectonics, etc., weren't disproved by lived experience and clinical impressions, but by rigorous scientific investigations.
2. Many tentative theories can be based on personal experiences and intuitions, including ones about "left brain" vs. "right brain" personalities. But once one is in the business of making recommendations to the broader public on the basis of one's expertise, one had better base those recommendations on something much more solid than these.
Dear Katharine,
As an Olfactory Language Processor (OLP) who takes pride in being an Olfactory Learner (I recall being 2 or 3 years old and smelling the words while I was in Stages 1, 2, and 3 of OLPA and I still make certain everything I wish to learn passes the sniff test), I think your open letter to Speech-Language Pathologists/Speech and Language Therapists is INSPIRED! My lungs filled with sweet-smelling happiness the moment I inhaled your aromatic words. Indeed, they are simply an inspiring breath of fragrant fresh air and not to be sniffed at. Obviously your words will get up the noses of Systematic Nasal Learners (SNAs). Indeed, some may find them malodorous and assert that they stink. But hey! I like to be inclusive, so no stinky judgement. Caroline
P.S. Let's hear it for CN-1, and remember, "as far as neurons go, olfactory receptor neurons are unusual — they live outside of the brain, but keep one foot inside it".
Brilliant! Reminiscent of the Structured Word Inquiry folks talking about the importance of feeling the words in their mouths and "tasting them."
You lost me as soon as you suggested that the study measure language development through the CELF or CASL. If you know so little about language development and related data collection that you can even entertain the idea that these tests could be a valid measure of early communication skills (in any population, but especially ASD), why on earth would I trust your opinion on an ongoing debate that requires expertise to understand?
Hi Marge, Alex, & Co,
If I lost you as soon as I " suggested that the study measure language development through the CELF or CASL", then you missed the end of the sentence: "or some other comprehensive, standardized language measure."
While it may be true that outside the echo chamber, or, shall we say, "echolalia chamber," of NLA/GLP, these tests aren't "a valid measure of early communication skills (in any population, but especially ASD)", you are wrong. The CASL is used for age 3+; the CELF, for 5+. They are, in fact, routinely used to measure early communication skills, including in autism. And to determine whether GLP therapy gets kids to what it calls "Stages 4-6" faster than non-NLA/GLP-based speech-language therapy, we need comprehensive language assessments that measure, among other things, phrase speech and syntax.
But I'm guessing that no objective, standardized test will be acceptable to you, as you seem to reject all such in favor of "lived experience" and "clinical experience."
I hereby invite you to prove me wrong. Name an objective, standardized test you could countenance using in the randomized, controlled experiment I described above to determine whether NLA/GLP-based speech-language therapy gets kids to "Stages 4-6" faster than non-NLA/GLP based therapy.
Cheers!
Katharine
*While it may be true that *inside the echo chamber, or, shall we say, "echolalia chamber," of
Post a Comment