@article{ref1,
title="Evaluating claims to avoid pseudoscientific and unproven practices in special education",
journal="Intervention in school and clinic",
year="2016",
author="Travers, Jason C.",
volume="52",
number="4",
pages="195-203",
abstract="Special education professionals are charged with using evidence-based practices, but various unproven, disproven, and pseudoscientific interventions continue to proliferate. Unproven and ineffective interventions emerge and are adopted for various reasons. Ineffective interventions are inevitably harmful and require professionals to adopt a conservative approach that both minimizes potential for harm and maximizes potential for educational benefit. This is fundamental to the evidence-based movement, but special education professionals may not recognize and avoid ineffective interventions. This article aims to improve recognition of potentially ineffective interventions by shedding light on aspects of science, pseudoscience, and some mistakes frequently made in evaluating claims of intervention effectiveness. By becoming familiar with the distinctions between science and pseudoscience, and by developing an understanding of how errors in thinking are used to promote and defend interventions unsupported by empirical evidence, special education professionals can better protect their students with disabilities from potential harms associated with ineffective practices...   ...Pseudoscience typically is associated with grandiose claims that are not supported by evidence or, in some cases, in direct opposition with evidence. Science is conservative and therefore more likely to result in gradual changes that are informed by the collection of facts. Whereas science values open-mindedness and results in changes in belief based on new evidence, pseudoscience typically is dogmatic in the face of new evidence. Promoters of pseudoscientific interventions typically use convoluted language and borrow jargon to appear more credible (e.g., &quot;brain-based learning&quot;), but scientists use precise terminology with explicit procedures conducive to verification by independent researchers. And while scientists seek out and value criticism from their peers, pseudoscientists view critics as adversaries and often work alone.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="1053-4512",
doi="10.1177/1053451216659466",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1053451216659466"
}