Part Two: Comparing Applied Behavioral Analysis with the Miller Method

Part Two: Comparing Applied Behavioral Analysis with the Miller Method

CONTROVERSY AROUND THE ABA/MM WORKSHOP
Recently, Dr. Ron Leaf (ABA) complained to Dr. Miller (MM) about alleged bias in the structure of the recent workshop comparing ABA with the Miller Method. By implication he challenged the authenticity of the findings which showed the MM to have a more significant impact than ABA on the nonverbal autistic child both approaches worked with. Below, is the exchange between Dr. Leaf and Dr. Miller. Dr. Leaf: It's the issue of fairness. We found the workshop to be set up in such a biased manner. Not only was the division of time not equitable but the fact that Dr. Miller had contact with clients prior to the workshop was once more example of not abiding by the "agreement". I can certainly understand that he needed every possible advantage but I was disappointed nonetheless.
Dr. Miller: Ron, I take strong exception to your assertion that the workshop was biased in favor of the Miller Method. If anything, the workshop was strongly biased in favor of ABA! It was at your request that we authorized Toby Mountjoy (Dr. Leaf's associate) to have 4 additional hours "off stage" with each child so that you might demonstrate gains achieved at the end of the third day. Since each of us had a videotaped hour with each child, with Toby's extra hours that amounted to a 5:1 ratio of hours to be spent with each child by ABA...While the unfairness implicit in this arrangement was troublesome, I went along with it in the interest of getting the workshop off the ground.
You also made the following comment: "...but the fact that Dr. Miller had contact with clients prior to the workshop was once more example of not abiding by the "agreement".
What in the world are you referring to?: Of course we had prior e-mail contact with potential volunteers for the workshop. How else were we to screen so that inappropriate children, e.g., those with seizure disorders, were not included. At no time did we have face-to-face contact with the children or parents until they actually appeared at the workshop.
I am troubled by your penchant for distorting the facts. Is it possible that you find it difficult to accept the obvious, i.e., that the MM "a miscellaneous approach" (your words), was a vastly superior method than ABA for helping nonverbal children on the autism spectrum make progress? Frankly, given the gusto with which you sought to dispose of other approaches, I expected much more from ABA. Instead I found a naivete re developmental issues, e.g., trying to teach a child functioning at 13-14 months how to make choices, as well as what it takes to develop meaningful communication other than by trying to get an echolalic child attach significance to remote terms such as "helicopter."
Dr. Leaf: Very entertaining...
Dr. Miller: I'm glad that you enjoyed my response to your allegations of bias. However, I do not enjoy having my integrity and the integrity of my work, questioned...I will accept an apology from you and let this matter drop.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• miller2TR2

[shydex]

Both methods treat the kid like he's a dog. They use pavlovian condition reaction methods to gain static results. Carl Jung warned us about this saying that the reaction will not change reguardless of the context of the condition. I fail to see how this helps david have meaningful communication. He pushes when told to push, and can retreive a ball. He still has no effective way to ask for something. He also has a meltdown mid session. That means he is overstimulated. Thats not a good thing.

[megkpd]

other than the use of the come sign the miller method seems focused on receptive directions and an excess use of physical prompting. The ABA therapy was focused on expressive communication and more motivating. Dr. Miller uses a firm tone and hands on approach reminicent of the ABA therapy used fourty years ago. Hopefully parents aren't buying into this.

[refi68]

this seems the same as "NET', or natural environment teaching which is an integral part of the "verbal behavior" method...the difference is the elevated board....also, I don't think the "aba" portion of the comparison was paired with high enough reinforcers to give a true light of how effective ABA/VB can be. I do like the miller method..but I have to say that I see components of VB in the method. Can stacking/pouring, may have a high motivation for the child, raising the intent to communicate

[refi68]

this seems the same as "NET', or natural environment teaching which is an integral part of the "verbal behavior" method...the difference is the elevated board....