An external review of the conclusions regarding the peak direct training module

Abstract

Promoting the Emergence of Advanced Knowledge-Direct Training Module (PEAK-DTM) is a commercially available assessment and curriculum for individuals whose language skills are not developmentally adequate. In their review of PEAK-DTM, Reed and Luiselli (2016) analyzed the extant literature on PEAK-DTM and concluded that it has a sound and growing body of empirical support on its efficacy, usability, and psychometric properties. Similar conclusions are mirrored in the PEAK-DTM literature and promotional material. I review these conclusions and contend that many overrate the research that backs them. Suggestions for a more rigorous research agenda on PEAK-DTM and its related modules are provided.

Rational skepticism: A scientific review of Witts' (2018) criticisms of the PEAK relational training system

“…Witts'() review included 30 identifiable criticisms that are presented in the decision tree in Figure and summarized with our responses in Table . Each criticism is reviewed with respect to the soundness of the criticism with respect to the support for his conclusions.…”

“…The decision tree used to evaluate each of Witts' () criticisms of PEAK research. The numbers show the total criticisms in each category.…”

“…Next, we evaluated whether criticisms were logically valid; that is, if a given criticism did not commit to well‐established fallacies in science and scientific doubt. The two most relevant to Witts' () review were moving the goalposts and committing a red herring. Moving the goalposts can occur when a critic suggests a study is invalid because it failed in obtaining an outcome that the study never intended to evaluate.…”

“…Witts () provided a review of some current research on the PEAK Direct Training Module (PEAK‐DTM; Dixon, ) that offered a different perspective from an initial review of the module by Reed and Luiselli (), and a more recent review of research on all four PEAK modules by Dixon, Belisle, McKeel et al (). Witts advocated for a skeptical view of the current research, stating “a skeptical analysis is required when claims regarding assessment and treatment seem to oversell or misrepresent the data” (p. 721).…”

“…We address each of Witts' () criticisms in the order they appeared in his review. Before addressing these concerns, however, we feel compelled to address some more general concerns from the outset.…”