Talk:The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential

Undue removed from lede

I removed the following from the lede. It seems undue and from an involved source. The scientific evaluation section contains multiple sources of considerably higher quality which contradict this assertion.

"David McGlown has stated that "much professional criticism [of pattern therapy] has tended to be emotive rather than scientific.""

- - MrBill3 (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Claim that infants don't count but can "subitize" up to 100

I read Doman's 1982 "Teach Your Baby Math" where he claimed https://books.google.com/books?id=3nLsDYOi-rsC&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=dots that a toddler could distinguish (subitize) 38 dots from 39, and 91 from 92, without counting, up to 100.

The Institute's BrillKids 2008 book makes the same claim http://www.brillkids.com/media/ebooks/ebook-teaching-your-baby-math.pdf "When a very young child looks at a large number of items, she doesn’t need to guess or count to see how many are there. The child can instantly see 48 marbles, in just the same way that the rest of us can instantly see 4- by subitizing. ... Once the child has a foundation in quantity (having learned up to at least the number 20), you can begin equations using those quantities (while continuing to teach up to 100)." BUT then they claim, "The ability to subitize large quantities will typically fade away as a child grows older... children retain the ability to perceive large quantities at least up to the age of two and a half." [From reading Doman's 1982 book and now using Google Books to search, I don't think he indicated that the children lose this alleged ability.]

Question: Is this "Infant Subitizing" worth a subsection? BTW, WP's Subitizing article doesn't mention IAHP/Doman. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Material sourced to Non RS removed

I removed the following:

other more recent studies suggest the methods may have merit and reference the work of the Institutes.

The first article is published in a journal that is not indexed by Medline or WOS and is not seen as credible by many (see sources listed for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons#Journal_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons). The second is about 3 case studies and cites and uses the Doman Delacato instrument, but provides no evidence or citation that indicates this instrument has been validated. Per WP:RS and WP:DUE this material does not belong in the article.

Also removed:

While theories behind Fay Reflex Therapy (the "Doman-Delacato Method") are contested, techniques resulting from the theory are used in conventional physical or occupational therapy today that were not used prior, and the techniques are well understood in terms of motor learning.

The first part of this is not sourced to RS much less MEDRS. The second part is unsourced.MrBill3 (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, thanks for working on this, —PaleoNeonate – 12:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Mischaracterization of "control grop"

The statement "Such studies require a control group, in that half the patients receive the treatment and the other half receive placebo treatment over time. A control group in this manner, where children are not being treated," is not accurate. A control group does not necessarily receive placebo treatment, note the study by van Techner et al that compares two different treatment modalities. (In fact it is unlikely that an ethics review board would approve a study which involved not providing usual treatment) It is quite common in medical research for the control group to receive "usual treatment". The current content goes on to state, "Doman's personal philosophy: "leave no injured behind". Additionally, since Doman taught that "time is the enemy of the brain-injured child" (in that each day they are not getting better, they are getting worse), the months or years that the control group would not be treated, he would be doing "harm" in participation. According to his philosophy, this would be in conflict with the Hippocratic oath, namely first do no harm." As the control group would not "not be treated" the whole premise of all this content is not valid. Pending comment I will revise this section including the header.MrBill3 (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Funding and contributors section

This section is not sourced to RS, it is sourced to the Institutes own website. See WP:RS sources should be published reliable third party sources. The only other source is questionable at best and supports only one named contributor. Pending comment I will remove this section. MrBill3 (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

If I remember we can use a primary source for information about themselves but maybe it's best to attribute it as such; if it's controversial information (i.e. more than numbers) it's another matter of course... I agree that if we can get secondary sources instead it's always best. —PaleoNeonate – 12:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

OR, Synth and DUE

I have placed tags indicating statements that seem to contain WP:OR, Synth and fail to provide sources with WP:Due weight (a single book, a couple of websites, one for a business used to support broad statements of neuroscience ideas as facts offered as counterpoint to a major medical organization's published statement) or meet WP:MEDRS standards for reliable sources on medical topics. See WP:FALSEBALANCE also. MrBill3 (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

The sentence I am reporting below does not read well.

A 2006 retrospective study of 21 children by the IAHP and others of children with cortical visual impairment found significant improvement after use of the program the study had no control group. 109.190.253.11 (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)