Each year I receive several emails from colleagues about 'retained primitive reflexes.' I am also seeing an increased number of reports from local 'health care' providers who are documenting these alleged problems so I thought I would write a summary of my opinion on this topic. Predatory 'health care' providers including some OTs, PTs, chiropractors, and behavioral optometrists are creating a new 'market' for treating this alleged 'problem.' Parents should be very wary of these practitioners and other professionals should challenge these practices whenever they are seen. The following is the kind of information that causes concern and was provided to me by a colleague as a sample from a student's IEP: The student continues to demonstrate the following retained primitive reflexes that at times interfere with his ability to demonstrate appropriate adaptive responses: Fear Paralysis Reflex, Moro Reflex, Palmer Reflex, Tonic Labyri...
Before the profession gets too deep into updating the Occupational Therapy Practice Framework, I think we should take some time to pause and reflect on both the substance and process of the revision. While preparing a lecture recently, I found myself revisiting a section from my occupational therapy theory textbook where I trace the successive definitions of occupational therapy that have appeared in the various editions of the Practice Framework. I included that section in the book because the pattern bothered me when I first noticed it, and it still does. When the definitions are placed side by side, something becomes clear that is easy to miss when each revision appears on its own. Since the first Occupational Therapy Practice Framework was published in 2002, the profession has repeatedly revised its official definition of occupational therapy through successive editions of that document. None of the changes are dramatic in isolation. But taken together they represent a gradual and ...
I was happy to see the American Academy of Pediatrics publish their new policy statement about sensory integration. I know that a lot of people are up in arms about this policy but in my estimation the AAP presents a very fair and balanced assessment. Defenders of 'sensory processing disoder' are quick to point out that some more recent research was not included in the AAP review. I was disappointed when I read Dr. Miller's letter to the editor where she talked about the 2007 RCT. This was a great study and I think they did an impressive job of looking at limitations in previous studies but it was only a pilot study and it lacked statistical power, there were noted blinding problems, and it relied on GAS which many people believe opens up issues of expectancy and confirmation bias. My point here is not to rip apart people's efforts because actually it was a good step forward in our research. The problem is that we can't point to studies like th...
Comments