dults. On many accounts the SRIs had adverse side effects, but on the other hand, many individuals benefited from the SRIs (McDougle et al, 2000). Because of these varied results, much research is left to be done on the effects of SRIs on individuals with autism.With all the recent focus on autism, there has been a lot that we have learned over the years. We have come to understand that intensive interventions can be extremely effective, students do best in a structured and predictable environment, generalization must occur, outcomes are better when parents are involved in treatment, and that different children benefit from different strategies. Although this information has been very helpful, there is a lot we still don’t know. We know that individualized assessment strategies are best, but we do not yet know the best way to accommodate for individual needs. We do not know what factors (child, family, cultural, etc.) are best at determining what treatment procedure is best. Much of what we don’t know for sure is due to poor research. Agreed, much of the research is helpful, but it has not given us definite answers, which is a hard task in research. Schreibman has come up with several features of research that should be looked at when determining effectiveness. Included in these are 1. appropriate control groups and/or conditions, 2. well selected and specified populations, 3. appropriate and comprehensive diagnostic assessment of the populations, 4. appropriate randomized assignment, 5. were the treatment procedures described in the study actually used as intended?, and 6. comprehensive assessment strategies (Schreibman, 2000). These are all components of research that are important, but may or may not have been used, leaving the results of many of the studies invalid and/or unreliable. As you can see, there is a good deal to be done in the treatment research for autism. Yet the progress we have made to date ...
