Correction concerning Howard et al. (2005).

Autism research controversy: A response to Howard et al.'s (2005) defenders.

“…In the opening paragraph of their letter to the editor, Howard and colleagues (Howard et al, 2007) indicate their intention to “correct some misrepresentations” of their study (Howard et al, 2005)-misrepresentations which allegedly appeared in this journal as well as “elsewhere” (Howard et al, 2007, p. 144). In the next paragraph they decry the supposed “dissemination of unfounded statements and insinuations about the study and those involved in it” (p. 144).…”

“…Again, in their letter (2007) they attempt to remove some of this ambiguity. Specifically, they report that the “nonpublic agency” (i.e., Therapeutic Pathways, an agency for which the first and second authors serve as directors) that provided the intensive behavior analytic treatment in the study has “never refused to serve a child with autism who was referred to its ... programs ... as long as there were adequate resources to staff and supervise the programming” (Howard et al, 2007, p. 144). Fair enough.…”

“…Further clarifying the role of the other members of the IEP/IFSP teams, Howard et al (2007) also assert in their letter that “neither the staff of the nonpublic agency nor any Regional Center staff person ever directed <italics added> a child to be placed in any particular intervention program”(p. 144). This is an important assertion.…”

“…In their letter, Howard et al (2007) claim that nonrandom assignment was used in their study “because of serious ethical and practical constraints” and because it would have violated “state and federal laws governing special education placement and procedures” (p. 144). Given the distinct advantages of random assignment, Howard et al (2007) need to be specific here; unfortunately, they are not. However, I shall make some brief comments on their justification--sketchy as it is--for not employing random assignment.…”

“…However, others have attempted to counter my criticisms. Specifically, this journal recently published two letters to the editor offering spirited defenses of Howard et al (2005): one by the researchers themselves (Howard, Sparkman, Cohen, Green, & Stanislaw, 2007) and the other by Tristram Smith (2007). Further, this current issue contains a third letter (Wright, 2007) which also offers a defense of Howard et al In what follows I respond to all three letters, beginning with the more substantive of the three (Smith, 2007), and then concluding with Howard et al (2007) and Wright (2007).…”