Current Problems of Speech and Language Therapy in Autism Spectrum Disorders – Subjectivity, Purposefulness, Methods and Scientific Evidence

Abstract

The article deals with the current problems of speech and language therapy in autism spectrum disorders, which are connected with subjectivity, purposefulness, methods and scientific evidence. The author points out the importance of the category of subjectivity in the treatment of autism spectrum disorders, referring it to people with autism spectrum disorders, their families, but also therapists themselves. She recalls the person-centered care (PCC) concept in this context. Lists the potential threats for subjectivity in treatment of people with autism spectrum disorders. Relates the problem of subjectivity to cooperation with families of people with autism, as well as cooperation within a multidisciplinary team. Emphasizes the importance of knowledge about emotions and awareness of cultural factors as important in the therapy of people with autism spectrum disorders. Writing about the purposefulness of speech therapy in autism spectrum disorder, he draws attention to the selection of goals, their hierarchy and dynamics in their implementation. Draws attention to the importance of the problem of organizing therapeutic treatment, especially in the face of current changes in social reality. In the final part she discusses the problem of therapy methods. In the final part she discusses the problem of therapy methods in autism spectrum disorders, including problem of scientific evidence and evidence based practice. Indicates the possible reasons why this problems became the subject of lively discussions. Discusses the doubts related to the use of evidence-based practice (EBP) paradigm in speech therapy. It evokes a look at the problem of scientific evidence
understood behind the EBP stream from the perspective of the philosophy of science. In its light, EBP is a creation of human thought mediated in a specific philosophical concept, i.e. in empiricism, and realizes the ideal of science in line with this tradition. Recognizing the unquestionable value of
empirical research and the contribution of empiricism to the development of science, the author suggests that when distinguishing between types of knowledge (differently defined scientific evidence, individual experiences, etc.), do not re-evaluate or undervaluate any of them.