Language
Country/Area
No result found
How is RPM different from traditional assisted communication techniques? Why are experts skeptical about it?
In the field of assistance and communication, the "Rapid Prompt Method" (RPM) as a technology to help people with autism or other disabilities communicate, has attracted the attention of many people in its novel ways.However, there is a clear difference between this approach and traditional communication techniques, and experts' doubts about it mainly come from the lack of evidence of its scientificity and effectiveness.
"RPM is a low-tech approach that requires only one teacher, student, paper and pencil."
Soma Mukhopadhyay, founder of the Rapid Prompt Method, claims that the technology is based on psychology and developmental theory and aims to help those who are unable to speak due to autism or other developmental disorders, Point, type, or write to communicate.Compared with traditional assisted communication techniques, RPM not only relies on literature or experience, but also emphasizes personalized learning channels such as vision, hearing and touch.However, this approach has also sparked criticism, with experts pointing out some potential problems in its implementation.
"Although RPM differs in some ways from facilitating communication (FC), it still has the potential to perform unconscious cues, as letter boards are usually held by assistants."
Experts believe that over-reliance on tips (i.e., oral and physical assistance of assistants) may inhibit the ability of individuals with autism to communicate independently.The American Language and Listening Association (ASHA) has stated that it does not recommend RPM and stressed its lack of scientific effectiveness.It is obvious that frequent use of cues may lead to participants’ dependence on assistants, thereby reducing their initiative, and there is a risk that the assistant will unconsciously create information whenever there is a promotional behavior.
To date, only one scientific study has tried to support Mukopadia's claim on the effectiveness of RPM, but the study has been accused of significant methodological flaws.
"Until the future, more rigorous trials on safety and effectiveness have not been proven, we strongly do not recommend RPM for clinical workers, educators and parents of autistic children."
This has sparked discussions about whether the approach can really provide effective communication channels for those in need.Experts point out that although RPM proponents claim to help people express potential intellectual abilities and improve communication skills, potential interventions from assistants in information cannot be ruled out at this time.
However, although some argue that RPM can enable some people to achieve unexpected literacy and communication skills, critics believe that such abilities often exceed individuals' expectations of education and life experience, which triggers people's possible promotions Constantly affecting students' performance.
"The prompts used may be similar to the magician's technique, creating the illusion of verbatim communication."
In addition, critics point to the lack of systematic training for RPM, which means the lack of moderate promotional assistance to reduce dependence on assistants.Although RPM proponents believe that such hint dependence is a necessary assistance, it may actually significantly reduce the opportunity for autonomous communication.
Although the promoters of RPM emphasize the effectiveness of its approach, the consensus in the scientific community is that more scientific research is needed to prove and improve the approach in order to obtain a viable communication solution.Whether to invest more resources in RPM's offense and defense needs to be further discussed and considered.
As the understanding of this technology continues to deepen, will there be other more effective alternatives or improvement methods in the field of communication and interaction in autism in the future?
