Why does Embrace Autism publish misinformation that isn't backed up by their sources?
I noticed that the Embrace Autism website has made multiple claims that are objectively false. But when I check the sources they have linked at the bottom of those pages, those sources also say that the claims are false. Has anyone else noticed this?
Here are some examples -
Example 1
Embrace Autism has an article authored by founder Dr. Natalie Engelbrecht, in which she claimed:
Autistics have the visual acuity of birds of prey. What a neurotypical can see at 7 feet, we can see at 20 feet on average.
But the title of the source she cited literally states the opposite:
Visual Acuity in Adults with Asperger’s Syndrome: No Evidence for “Eagle-Eyed” Vision
This part of the Embrace Autism article was eventually removed, but according to the wayback machine, this section of the article remained for about 5 years (from when it was published in May 2018 to May 2023).
Example 2
On another page published on Embrace Autism by founder Dr. Natalie Engelbrecht, she advertises the RAADS-R as an "online autism test", under a paragraph that says:
Online autism tests can play an important role in your journey of self-discovery, and may inform your decision to pursue a formal diagnosis
But when you select RAADS-R from this page, it brings you to another Embrace Autism page written by Dr. Natalie Engelbrecht that gives more information on this test, and on the list of sources they provide, there is a study authored by the actual creator of the RAADS-R. It states:
The RAADS-R is not intended to be a mail in or an online screening instrument.
The RAADS-R is still heavily advertised as an "online autism test" on the Embrace Autism website to this day. Dr. Natalie Engelbrecht also uses the RAADS-R solely as a mail in test when she conducts official diagnostic assessments on her patients, even though the creator of the test said it should not be an online test or a mail in test.
Example 3
On the Embrace Autism RAADS-R page, Dr. Natalie Engelbrecht also stated:
The test has good reliability when self administered, but this can drop down to 30% when clinicians administer it, depending on their understanding of autism.
The source cited tor for Dr. Natalie Engelbrecht's claims about the RAADS-R accuracy and reliability is a study authored by the creator of the RAADS-R. Nowhere in this study does it say anything about the test being less accurate when administered by a clinican. However, it does state the opposite:
It must be emphasized...that clinical judgment should take precedence. This is due to the many limitations of self-rating scales...
The RAADS-R was designed to assist clinicians in diagnosing adults with suspected ASD. It is designed to be administered by clinicians in a clinical setting.
Scales based on self-reports have inherent limitations...This was mitigated in the present study by having a clinician remain with the subject...
The AQ is mailed in by the participant, unlike the RAADS-R, which is designed to be administered by a clinician in a clinical setting.
The statement about the test being more accurate when self administered was eventually removed from the Embrace Autism page, but according to the wayback machine, this section remained for about 3 years (from when it was published in April 2020 to May 2023).
Final thoughts
The founder of this business and author of these articles proclaims herself as a specialist in autism research. It's already a bit careless to publish incorrect information, but the fact that these statements are debunked in the sources that Dr. Natalie Engelbrecht provided herself, is really strange to me. Especially with how in the first example, the literal title of the source was saying the opposite of what she claimed in the article. Does anyone have any thoughts as to why this is a recurring issue on Embrace Autism?
Posted Feb 5, 2024, 5:59 AM UTC · edited