Language
Country/Area
No result found
How did Soma Mukhopadhyay, the founder of RPM, invent this method? What are the mysterious stories behind it?
The Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) is a technique that attempts to help people with autism or other disabilities communicate by pointing, typing, or writing. However, this widely used method still has many controversies and objections. There are many untold stories behind this approach developed by RPM's founder, Soma Mukhopadhyay, not only out of a desire to connect with her son.
“The goal of RPM is to establish functional independent directed communication, particularly for individuals who are nonverbal due to severe autism or other developmental disabilities.”
Mukhopadhyay's work was inspired by her deep concern for her son Tito. Tito is an autistic patient with limited speech. Mukhopadhyay tried different behaviors and communication techniques over many years and finally designed RPM. She believes that autism is not a manifestation of intellectual disability, but the result of insufficient sensory integration ability. Therefore, RPM can activate the reasoning part of the brain and help students learn.
In 2001, Mukhopadhyay introduced RPM to the United States in collaboration with a disease research organization, and over time, as more and more teenagers and children used this method, RPM's followers increased. Supporters claim that RPM can enable people with disabilities to express untapped intellectual abilities and improve communication skills.
"We claim that RPM is the most direct and unrestricted path to learning and communication."
However, objections to this approach are equally loud. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association has issued a statement on the use of RPM, pointing out that this method has problems with prompt dependence and lack of scientific validity. Critics have argued that RPM’s over-reliance on prompting may inhibit the ability of individuals with autism to communicate independently, as participants rely on verbal or physical prompts from an assistant that are strong enough to influence the final expression.
Many professional organizations, such as the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD), have also expressed concerns about RPM. They believe that this method may deprive participants of their ability to express themselves autonomously, as the influence of the prompter may mean that the final expression is not the participant's true thoughts.
“Rather than helping individuals express their ideas, RPM and FC may be more capable of taking away people’s voices.”
In terms of the operation of RPM, Mukhopadhyay developed a series of "teaching-asking" procedures, in which the assistant first provides a concept and then asks the students about their results. Although this method gradually improved the communication ability of participants, it still faced the fate of being constantly questioned.
The debate between supporters and critics continues to heat up, as reflected in some public discussions and media reports. For example, in some documentaries, Mukhopadhyay's story and her methods have received widespread attention, however, along with it have come questions about its scientific validity. Scientific American magazine once criticized experts who advocated RPM for not conducting scientific research to verify the effectiveness of the method.
"Until future studies can demonstrate safety and effectiveness, we strongly recommend that clinicians, educators, and parents do not use RPM."
Evaluation studies of RPM remain difficult to conduct because, in some cases, the process of conducting such studies is subject to policy constraints. In the face of current scientific skepticism, Mukhopadhyay and his supporters appear to have chosen to mount an aggressive defense, claiming that scientific criticism deprives autistic people of their right to communicate.
In this case, what exactly is the future of RPM? Will it become a more validated approach, or will it continue to fade away in the storm?
