Concerns About ABA-Based Intervention: An Evaluation and Recommendations

Abstract

For over 50 years, intervention methods informed by the principles of applied behavior analysis (ABA) have been empirically researched and clinically implemented for autistics/individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Despite the plethora of evidence for the effectiveness of ABA-based interventions, some autism rights and neurodiversity activists have expressed concerns with ABA-based interventions. Concerns have included discontent with historical events and possible harm from the procedures and goals targeted. The purpose of this manuscript is to examine some expressed concerns about ABA-based intervention and suggest productive ways of moving forward to provide the best outcomes for autistics/individuals diagnosed with ASD. The authors represent stakeholders from multiple sectors including board certified behavior analysts, licensed psychologists, parents, and autistics/individuals diagnosed with ASD.

The University of California at Los Angeles‐Young Autism Project: A systematic review of replication studies

“…While there may be some social validity in distinguishing whether or not children are likely to be able to perform under the same conditions as the majority of their peers (e.g., if they reach an IQ of 85 or higher), behavior analysts generally avoid indirect measures (Cooper et al., 2020) and use them only for comparisons with traditional, non‐behavioral studies (e.g., Leaf et al., 2021; Mundy, 2003; Neuhaus et al., 2010; Rutter, 1974). More tangible outcome measures used in the studies reviewed here included school placement, being able to follow mainstream curricula, and/or the lack of needing additional educational assistance.…”

“…Given the cultural shift in definitions of autism (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), social and educational inclusion (UNESCO, 1994), children's rights (UNCRC, 2001), rights of persons with disabilities generally (UNCRPD, 2006), autism awareness (Dillenburger et al., 2013, 2017), social meaning of autism (Dubin, 2011; Mitchell, 2019; Singer, 1998), and autism self‐advocacy (Leaf et al., 2021), most children with autism now are educated in mainstream schools (Department of Health, 2020; Dillenburger et al., 2016) and school placement can no longer be used as a main criterion for evaluating interventions. Where other indirect measures, such as IQ tests, are used there should be consistency across studies.…”

“…For example, it would be interesting and important to know how social and emotional functioning are affected directly by interventions derived from the UCLA‐YAP model and/or what procedural adjustments would be necessary to achieve other socially important changes (Baer et al., 1968). Researchers and practitioners should make full use of the UCLA‐YAP model's flexibility (Leaf et al., 2021), for example, to explore ways of supporting older children, adolescents, or young adults on the autism spectrum, especially those with co‐occurring conditions like intellectual disabilities or mental health issues. Conclusions such as “EIBI is effective for some, but not all, children on the autism spectrum” (Howlin et al., 2009, p. 37) should be consigned to the past.…”

“…Behavior reduction procedures that focus on challenging behavior are based mainly on differential reinforcement schedules. In this context, it is important to note that earlier versions were critiqued for including some of positive punishment procedures (e.g., Douglas et al., 2021; Leaf et al., 2021). While this critique is justified from a retrospective perspective, it does not take account the historical context in which the first version of the manual was produced in 1980.…”

Correction to: Concerns About ABA-Based Intervention: An Evaluation and Recommendations

“…

The original version of the manuscript (i.e., Leaf et al, 2021) was published with a Green and Striefel (1988) reference by mistake. This reference should have instead been Favell, McGimsey, and Jones (1978).

…”