In Response to Lindsay and Emerson

Abstract

Background Lindsay's comments related mostly behaviour, analytic conceptions of human behaviour and therapy. Materials and Method I argue that radical behaviourism addresses many of his concerns relating to private behaviour and his cognitive analysis of the private behaviour of offenders with intellectual disabilities. Cognitive explanations of behaviour can readily be reformulated in behaviour analytic terms. Emerson's comments mostly concern the external validity of applied behaviour analysis (ABA) research, the costbenefit analysis of ABA interventions, the relevance of outcome research to public policy and the apparent narrowness of outcome variables used in ABA outcome research. I argue that treatment efficacy is a necessary condition for cost efficacy and the only other approach that currently has evidence of efficacy is anger management, although that is based on a very small literature. Studies have addressed the cost efficacy of ABA interventions for some common problems, but no studies are available for cost efficacy of non-behavioural research. The limitations in the outcome literature for ABA should be judged against the general absence of evidence from controlled studies for non-behavioural treatment.Conclusion The balance of evidence continues to favour selection of behavioural treatments.

Assessment and Treatment of Challenging Behaviour for Individuals with Intellectual Disability: A Research Review

“…; Didden et al . ). Some researchers have questioned, however, the extent to which this relation holds for individuals with higher incidence disabilities and less severe topographies of challenging behaviour (Sasso et al .…”

“…university‐based clinics, private schools for children with developmental disabilities), whereas rating scales and checklists are more likely to be used in larger developmental centres or group homes with fewer resources. Although the costs of providing high‐quality and comprehensive behavioural support services are not minor, they must be considered in terms of the potential savings of preventing more restrictive and expensive placements (Coland & Weisler ; Sturmey ). Additional empirical work estimating cost–benefit parameters of functional assessment and intervention for individuals with intellectual disability and challenging behaviour will be imperative, especially in light of recent predictions that cost–benefit rationales will be prioritized in the decision to offer residential or other services (Wolfensberger ).…”

The Life Skills group ‐ an introductory multi‐modular group programme in forensic learning disability

“…Prout and Nowak-Drabik (2003) conducted a meta-analysis on a small number of studies and found moderate effectiveness in terms of benefit to clients with learning disabilities, while Hassiotis and Hall (2004) concluded that there was no adequate evidence base for cognitive behaviour therapy. Sturmey (2005Sturmey ( , 2006aSturmey ( , 2006b has argued strongly that the benefits of CBT can be parsimoniously attributed to the behavioural components of this intervention, and that putative cognitive contributions can themselves be better expressed using a behavioural theory framework. Sturmey's position, described as amounting to a frank rejection of mentalism and with it the whole discipline of cognitive psychology, has been countered by both by Lindsay (2006) and Emerson (2006).…”