Yes, i developed a one-year follow-up research with the son-rise therapy. The results show some improvements in social and interactive dimensions of the child, but it cant be attributed only to the therapy. In other hand, although son-rise is known as a developmental approach, the practice seems more like a behavioral approach, where the "joy" of the activities can be seen as a reinforcement of that. We conclude that more research are needed to address this questions.

It is not an evidence-based methodology, no research behind it. No university or scientific conference will even mention it. It is a private bussinnes.

I agree wityh you, Nirvana, that this is a private business. But it have a seductive marketing that has attracted many parents to spend their time and money. I did a research to show that this therapy does not cure autism and is not a magic approach, like Jordan and Powell (1993) said. If Son-Rise is not a scientific approach, we have to show what is it with researches.

Son-Rise is one of may frauds preying on parents who want to do something themselves to help their child with a serious disability. It is no more worthy of study than any of the other frauds, which - unfortunately - must be studied in order to be debunked.

You don't need experience with it.

To Carlo: Which kind of experiments did you set up? Several universities in Germany look into that approach right now and as you mention, since there's money from parents, there's money for research. What did you find? Thanks!

Son-rise involves "joining-in" in the child's world with the hope that the child will be better motivated to participate in games initiated by the facilitator in the course of the "joining-in". Well I had the opportunity to work with some children with autism using the son-rise program and the progress recorded differ from one child to the other based on the presenting autistic symptoms in terms of severity and combination of other intervention methods. My experience with some Children with autism (age 4-7 years old) with a group of people using the son-rise method solely here in Nigeria; they improved mainly in their social skills and some aspects of their receptive language. They became less irritable too but are particularly challenged in expressive language skills. One particular child would only imitate any word using the syllable-/pa/. With my 12 years of working with children with autism therefore, I am of the opinoin that while some intervention methods will result in some improvements in some areas, a well articulated combination of intervention methods will likely result in better overall prognosis. Thanks

Dear Grace, from what I have seen so far I absolutely agree with you! Thanks.

I agree with Andree and Grace. Interventions programs are very difficult to measure. If you look at the Reasearch Autism site (http://www.researchautism.net/pages/autism_treatments_therapies_interventions/), few programs could be indicated as evidence-based practice. The Son-Rise is one of those. The only point i do not agree with is the indirect claims for cure. My research shows that the parents where swayed by kaufman´s videos and developed hopes of total cure of his sons. Because of tyhis, at the end of the intervention, they felt disappointed with the results.

I have heard of people who have attempted to evaluate the program but have been unable to do so due to a lack of cooperation from the program organisers.

There´s a new reserach on son-rise effects on: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021992413000518#

"parents where swayed by kaufman´s videos and developed hopes of total cure of his sons"

I think the Kaufmans are entitled to say that Raun was severely autistic and made a dramatic recovery, and that some of the remedial techniques that may have been responsible have been identified. This case and a few others are strong evidence against the idea that autism is due to a congential brain disease, and supports the idea that it is due to aberrant sensory programming of the brain in infancy, which can be reversed once this is understood and effective reprogramming techniques developed. Specifically, I believe that autism is a peripheral hearing disorder, mainly inner ear variability and hypersensitivity, so it is interesting to note that Raun had ear infections in early infancy. The Son-Rise program is certainly high on optimism, positivity and marketing, but I do not think it claims that every autistic person can be reset to normal, or for a total cure.

Actually, Dr. Gordon. I did a research last year about which leads parents to choose a particular type of intervention program. Parents who have chosen the son rise program reported that it was due to the Raun Kaufman´s videos, hence waiting for improvements of this magnitude. But at the end of the intervention (1 year) these parents reported dissatisfaction with the progress of your child. These results highlight the impact of the videos upon parental choice of intervention type, mediated by beliefs of reversibility of autism.

Unfortunately this is not an evidence based approach and parents should be very cautious about the anecdotal claims that arise from programs such as this one.

"Unfortunately this is not an evidence based approach"

Carlo 3 days ago linked to Houghton et al's just published study showing positive results from SR therapy. They stated "Although case studies suggest that SRP is an effective intervention for children with autism (Kaufman, 1982, Kaufman, 1995 and Kaufman and Kaufman, 1976), this study is the first to experimentally evaluate its efficacy".

We have to be careful. The study cited is a randomized trial of 6 kids per group over 5 days. This is not evidence for efficacy and the authors themselves report the study as evidence that proper studies need to be done. These programs have theoretical justification and deserve to be tested, but at this point they can not be considered evidence based

Here is an extract from the Son-Rise Program Newsletter Dec 2013:

"This is the first scientific study evaluating and demonstrating the effectiveness of The Son-Rise Program treatment. The peer-reviewed study, conducted by Northwestern University, and Lancaster University in the UK, showed significant improvements in the social skills of children who received Son-Rise Program treatment compared to a control group who didn’t receive any Son-Rise Program treatment. When working 40-hours a week with The Son-Rise Program Intensive Training, children with autism spectrum disorders–including young children with severe autism–demonstrated measurable improvement in three key areas:

* Social/communication skills

* Interactive attention span and frequency of interactions

* Spontaneous social communicative interaction

What’s especially remarkable is that the study was conducted over a five-day period. This means that the children in the experiment showed quantifiable results in only a week of The Son-Rise Program! What’s more, the study demonstrates and supports a child’s spontaneous desire to connect with others –as opposed to therapies that focus on scripted and/or prompted behaviors.

Now that the scientific community supports The Son-Rise Program, removing doubt about the efficacy of our treatment, we expect it to serve as a catalyst, enabling families to get funding approval for program tuition from local and/or state sources ... and greater support for your Son-Rise Program. The next time someone asks you whether the Son-Rise Program is based on scientific evidence, you can answer with an emphatic, "Yes" and cite the study.

As you can imagine, we’re thrilled to have empirical data validating what we’ve known for over than 35 years. Beginning with Raun, we’ve seen demonstrable, prognosis-defying results with The Son-Rise Program. Many of you have witnessed a transformation in your child that you had not previously dreamed possible."

The newsletter extract cited above is a good example of how intervention-sellers (not just ARC/Son-Rise) overstate the results of research.

There are some interesting aspects to the Son-Rise approach, but it's not "based on scientific evidence" as it existed long before this very brief and limited piece of research was carried out. Its most useful aspects are duplicated by other, better researched interventions, particularly Floor-Time Play Therapy and Intensive Interaction. Families can learn about and use these methods without paying the very high price of attending ARC courses, and without the heavy sales pitch (which includes encouraging attendance at further courses and purchasing products).

I have not read the study yet, but one has to question what and how much the control group got (40 hours of anything over five days will result in a change) and if the improvements were generalised and maintained.

I agree with Mitzi Waltz; the newsletter overstates the case of 'evidence-based. Six children participated i each group and the control group had not therapy at all. One study does not make an 'evidence-base'. I also agree with Jenny Pahl. Furthermore, the general strategies used (focusing on child initiations) are also part of other, more theoretically coherent, approaches (e.g. PRT and verbal behaviour). I have seen big improvements in children where parents were determined to promote social interaction and communication, and these parent did not sell out large amounts of money for it. This discussion highlights the need for sound comparison studies.

Hi, I am an autism parent and have used the Son-Rise program for our son who was diagnosed with ASD, when he was around 2 years old.

The Son-Rise program is meant to be run by parents at home. The parents are trained and then start their program at home with volunteers and certified trainers visiting from time to time. The therapy is conducted on a one-to-one basis and is child led. We saw considerable improvements in our son and he achieved several landmarks when we ran it at home in the UK - including toilet training, improved eye contact, speech and language, etc. We kept records using The Son-Rise Program® Developmental Model which indicated how our son went from a silent kid who spun the wheels on his toy cars to maintaining eye contact and speaking in long sentences .

I am a speech-language pathologist working with many children who have feeding and pre-speech disorders. I have taken the week-long Son-Rise Start Up Program and incorporate many principles of the Son-Rise Program in my therapy with children with a wide range of diagnoses. Over the years I have worked personally with children on the autistic spectrum who later participated in the Son-Rise Program at the Autism Treatment Center of America. In each of these children there were major changes in eye contact, shared focused attention, communication and a greater desire for social interaction. It is appropriate to question the level of evidence-based practice and research that supports this approach. There is, as others have pointed out, one small research study that supported greater gain in social skills and communication. I would strongly encourage more and better research of the effects of the Son-Rise Program. I wish they had offered their control group an intensive general play experience. The main variable that is uncontrolled is the intensity of the program. However, this research answers the basic question, "Did this program make a difference for the children who participated?" It was not asking whether it was better than another approach to working with children on the autistic spectrum. Although many of the specific techniques and strategies used are similar to other programs (i.e. Floor Time), the biggest difference is attitudinal. This is the central component of the Son-Rise Program. Good evidence-based research is based on strong levels of clinical practice and observed change in patients or clients. The results of the small research study plus a great many parent and clinician observations of measurable changes in a large number of children with autism, support the basic validity of the Son-Rise Program. This does not eliminate the need for more rigorous research, but it does suggest that it is an appropriate approach to recommend to parents who are interested in beginning a Son-Rise program for their child.

Thanks to all, who shared their EXPERIENCE! I am quite surprised to see a lot of contributions, which are not answers to my question. My question was not what you miss in the research of the Sun Rise Therapy, but addressing people, who tried it and would report about their experience, no matter to which outcome. So special thanks to Suzanne Morris and Dilip Mutum!

Some parts of the program may work for some persons. But, to me it seems a miracle based type of intervention, not evidence based.

What do you mean by "a miracle based type of intervention"?

Are you saying that if a program is not evidence based (with more than the one published study available), that it is not valid and shouldn't be used or promoted?

Barry Neal Kaufman wrote these books: "Autism can be cured", "The miracle of love" and "The miracle continues".

Up till now there is nobody who can cure autism.

Still I think that some children can benefit by the Son Rise program. But, unsure is: do these benefits last beyond the care of the parents. At some time these kids have to join a class with youngsters which do not adapt the behaviour of that child. There is no longer a clean room but a noisy class-room filled with stimulations, irritations and provocations. Every change is a problem but this one may be a very rough one. Later there may be a job and the young man or woman has to deal with all that comes along without the care of a parent.

Yes, a program that is not evidence based can be valid. But it is not reproduceable. And this is what children, adults and everyone on the spectrum in between, need: constant care based on solid knowledge. This is not what you find in the Son Rise program.

See:

http://www.researchautism.net/interventions/23/son-rise-program-and-autism

Our Opinion

There is almost no research (two very poor quality studies) to suggest that the Son-Rise Program is an effective intervention for children and young people on the autism spectrum.

http://www.researchautism.net/interventions/49/dir-method-and-autism

Our Opinion

There is some very limited research evidence to suggest that the DIR method may help improve the quality of interactions between some young children on the autism spectrum and their parents.

I think a lot of time, the problem arises due to use of certain terminology and many people don't like the term "curing". However, if we think of it rather as helping the children with their issues, it may be more palatable.

Why should we have a problem helping children with their physiological/ medical problems? e.g., gut issues and with their speech and language, which allows them to better navigate their way around this World.

I have personally met several children who have no longer have a diagnosis of autism. Their parents used a combination of a number of therapies including biomedical, speech and language therapy, homeopathy, ayurveda, special diets, neurofeedback, essential oils, massage, ABA, Son-Rise, etc. Don't know what worked and what did not or maybe it is a combination of all.

In science, dear Dilip, we have to use a common language. But anyway, when any approach helps, this is okay. Autism and taking care of someone who is on the spectrum is a great adventure. The spectrum is as wide as there are people - young or old - who have autism. So, when Suzanne Morris, from out of here profession, can surely say that she is helping children (on the spectrum) to become (more) social, to learn to speak, she is right. This is not a fight, it not us who are right. The children are right. But we have to help them to the best of our knowledge. And this is an ongoing journey.

Just to add to the discussion, a few commentators have mentioned that Son-Rise is not evidence based and there is no research behind it. However, that's not true. Several research has looked at Son-Rise but only two have examined the efficacy. Yes, there are certain weaknesses but hopefully there will be more studies in the future. The two studies which have been published are:

Houghton, K., Schuchard, J., Lewis, C., & Thompson, C. K. (2013). Promoting child-initiated social-communication in children with autism: Son-Rise Program intervention effects. Journal of communication disorders, 46(5-6), 495-506.

Thompson, C. K., & Jenkins, T. (2016). Training parents to promote communication and social behavior in children with autism: the son-rise program. Journal of Communication Disorders, Deaf Studies & Hearing Aids.

The answers below seem rather biased against it without actually having checked the facts.

Firstly, despite the fact that now the entire scientific field (for very unclear reasons) tries to deny that the child had ASD when his parents began experimenting whatever they could to reach out to their son, it is a fact that hos diagnosis was ASD.

Secondly, in the years of work and results that the program produced they did make several attempts to reach out to the academia. But zero responses. Which really looks suspicious to me. I have worked several years in the field of mental health care, anything that works should be become an adjuvant treatment. Because most ASD patient do not respond to most therapies because they aren't specific enough.

Thirdly, from the 1980s four short trails have been actually been performed. And, despite the tight deadlines the results were in fact impressive. Even in non verbal children with extremely limited ability to socialize or communicate.

So please, before rejecting treatments most know nothing about, for a condition they most probably have limited experience with, try and use a more objective and scientific approach. If something hasn't been tried on a larger scale but several patients, or their families, are able to support such claims because they recorded live the sessions during treatments, and they witnessed the progress made by the child, then please at least read thoroughly the existing evidence before taking a stand.

I now study neuroscience, but tge difference between me and most of my colleagues and professors is abysmal. Working with patients for years in a daily basis for long hours is completely different from studying cases and trying out drugs based on reports.

I truly hope more will be done to open the mind of the academia. Adjuvant treatments, natural treatments, can sll help clients who are resistant to drugs or complex comorbidities. I am learning every day how politics is ob facts more relevant than saving lives. And here, now, with covid such reality is becoming more dangerously evident.