Abstract
We explored the influence of credibility and evidence on public perceptions of ASD treatments using survey methodology. Participants (N = 379) read texts about different ASD treatments. The text presentation was based on a 2 × 2 within-subjects factorial design with treatment status [evidence based practices (EBP) vs. non-EBP] and source credibility in the text (credible vs. non-credible) as the independent variables. An instructional manipulation condition served as a between subjects factor. Respondents were more familiar with non-EBPs than EBPs, but viewed EBPs as being more credible and were more likely to endorse them compared to pseudoscientific practices. Interactions between source credibility and instructional manipulation were found on ratings of credibility and recommendation of both EBP and non-EBP texts. Implications of these findings are discussed.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1876-1886 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders |
| Volume | 49 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - May 15 2019 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:Funding This study was funded through awards granted by the Office of International Initiatives and Relations and the Office for Research and Policy at the College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Keywords
- Autism spectrum disorder
- Evidence-based practices
- Knowledge revision
- Pseudoscience
- Public knowledge
- Survey