Occupational Therapy using Rapid Prompting Method: A Case Report

Evidence does not support the use of Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) as an intervention for students with autism spectrum disorder and further primary research is not justified

“…As the authors note, the results of the review do not provide further researchbased insights on the educational outcomes of using RPM with students with ASD. Given a recent surge in literature relating to RPM (Deacy et al, 2015;McQuiddy et al, 2016;Ochs et al, 2005;Solomon, 2011), and the rapid dissemination of information about RPM through social media (Lang et al, 2016;Lilienfeld et al, 2015), there is a pressing need for key stakeholders to examine any literature on RPM critically in terms of its methodological rigor and its publisher's credibility (Bealle, 2016). Clinicians, teachers, and parents reading literature on RPM or other treatments for ASD, whether peerreviewed or not, need to know how to evaluate the methodology and potential risk of bias in reports on studies (e.g., to determine whether studies have been funded by Cure Autism Now Foundation, HALO, or an RPM provider, or includes data collected by Cure Autism Now, HALO, and/or Soma Mukhopadhay, or an RPM provider) (see Bowen & Snow, 2017).…”

“…Clinicians, teachers, and parents reading literature on RPM or other treatments for ASD, whether peerreviewed or not, need to know how to evaluate the methodology and potential risk of bias in reports on studies (e.g., to determine whether studies have been funded by Cure Autism Now Foundation, HALO, or an RPM provider, or includes data collected by Cure Autism Now, HALO, and/or Soma Mukhopadhay, or an RPM provider) (see Bowen & Snow, 2017). In weighing up conflicting reports of potential benefits or harms of RPM for children with ASD, evidence-based policy-makers must take into account the highest level of evidence available, including critical appraisal of published research (e.g., Lang et al, 2014), and not rely on unsubstantiated anecdotal reports of RPM being of benefit to children with ASD, such as those appearing in the mainstream media (e.g., Hallman, 2016), blogs (e.g., Vosseller, 2015), or articles on RPM published in questionable journals (e.g., McQuiddy et al, 2016). In 2006 found that parents of children with ASD report using an average of seven treatments for their children, and used multiple treatments lacking empirical support.…”

“…(p. 219). Considering the growth in ethnographic literature on RPM (Deacy et al, 2016;McQuiddy et al, 2016;Ochs et al, 2005;Solomon, 2011) it is important that all stakeholders involved in the provision of services to children with ASD (a) exercise due diligence in enacting their duty of care to people with ASD to provide evidence-based treatments that do not cause harm; (b) apply critical appraisal skills to the reading of all literature relating to RPM, and seek the advice of appropriately qualified professionals in the fields of ASD, education, communication, and behavior if in doubt about any potential risk of bias, conflict of interest, internal threats to rigor, or implications of the research; and (c) exercise caution and due diligence in any decisions regarding the use of RPM for people with ASD for clinical, educational, or research purposes.…”

“…In relation to future research, institutional ethical review boards considering ethical approval of research on RPM need to consider not only anecdotal or descriptive reports claiming benefit (e.g., Gernsbacher, 2004;McQuiddy et al, 2016;Solomon, 2006) but also the potential harms of RPM and availability of beneficial treatments for children and adults with ASD. In this context, treatment studies on RPM could be considered potentially harmful if (a) replacing opportunity for treatments that work, or (b) introducing the possibility of a child becoming indefinitely prompt dependent and the potential for the child's voice to be replaced by the facilitator's.…”