Social Thinking®: Science, Pseudoscience, or Antiscience?

Abstract

Today, there are several interventions that can be implemented with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Most of these interventions have limited to no empirical evidence demonstrating their effectiveness, yet they are widely implemented in home, school, university, and community settings. In 1996, Green wrote a chapter in which she outlined three levels of science: evidence science, pseudoscience, and antiscience; professionals were encouraged to implement and recommend only those procedures that would be considered evidence science. Today, an intervention that is commonly implemented with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder is Social Thinking®. This intervention has been utilized by behaviorists and non-behaviorists. This commentary will outline Social Thinking® and provide evidence that the procedure, at the current time, qualifies as a pseudoscience and, therefore, should not be implemented with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, especially given the availability of alternatives which clearly meet the standard of evidence science.

Social Thinking® Methodology: Evidence-Based or Empirically Supported? A Response to Leaf et al. (2016)

“…Contrary to what was implied in the Leaf et al (2016a) article, the creators of ST do indeed understand and appreciate the value of empirical evidence to support processes and outcomes. Further, we acknowledge the need for more empirical evidence regarding treatment of individuals with social communication problems and, in particular, outcome studies related to the ST methodology.…”

“…Understanding the types of therapeutic protocols and frameworks that can bring about change for the diverse population of individuals with social communication challenges is foremost in our minds. Leaf et al (2016a) make occasional statements about the ST methodology and our beliefs that were not attributed to any particular source, assign implication without context, and make speculations which seem particularly erroneous.…”

“…The ST methodology also represents an excellent context for clarifying the now wellestablished distinction between evidence-based practices (EBP) and empirically supported therapies (EST) (La Roche & Christopher, 2009;Westen, Novotny, & ThompsonBrenner, 2005;Wong et al, 2015). Important to note is that the term EBP is not synonymous with EST (Westen et al, 2005) as implied by Leaf et al (2016a). Evidence-based practices are defined as those practices based on the best available research combined with clinical expertise and stakeholder input (APA, 2006;ASHA, 2005;Dollaghan, 2007;Kazdin, 2008;NAC, 2011).…”

“…(Leaf et al, 2016a; Erratum: Leaf et al, 2016b). These misconceptions have created an opportunity to discuss an issue of great importance to those who treat individuals diagnosed with social communication challenges including, but not limited to, autism spectrum disorders (ASD).…”

“…That issue is the question of what do we mean by Bevidence-based practiceô r as Leaf and colleagues have cast it, the science of intervention. Because the Leaf et al (2016a) article focused entirely on Social Thinking® (ST) 1 for their arguments, we will start by defining the methodology, and then offer an alternative viewpoint to this important issue.…”