Talk:Applied behavior analysis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

WP:TALK

To anon editor responsible for these edits, please read WP:TALK before making further, similar changes. It is important that you do not edit others comments. This will allow future users to follow the discussion more easily.

Thanks,

WLU 18:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

ABA weaknesses

There is no mention in this section of studies which show ABA's significant weakness in the areas of social/emotional development, perspective taking and executive functioning. Furthermore, there is no mention of ABA's past, and how, even into the 1970s, negative reinforces which included slapping children, were used to deter "maladaptive behaviors".

It is an unfortunately past that used aversive controls, but this is not the field as a whole, but parts of the field (there is no unified "ABA" organization, but rather many practitioners. Opposition to all of biology because of the actions of /some/ biologists, or to all of physics because of /some/ physicists would seem similarly (I hope) odd. I plan to add some of the aversive studies you mention (I've come across some in JEAB/JABA) in a few weeks when I am less busy. --florkle 05:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added some stuff on aversives, but there is definitely more. This issue is a great issue for discussion as it lead to a lot of "ethical controls" to control Jon Bailey (author of Ethics for Behavior Analysts). The issue of aversives has definitely split behavior analysts, and given the entire discipline some very bad press. My take is that there are those who argue that it is effective and those who are that it is inapropriate whether or not it is effective. On a more theoretical level there are those who argue whether or not punishment/aversives really are effective even if responding is disrupted. Behavior analysis has changed considerably since the 1970s as has American society as a whole. Homosexuality is not considered to be a mental illness and the use of aversive controls is somewhat lessened. --florkle 19:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a few questions in regards to the author of the text on Applied Behavior Analysis. First of all, I was pleased to see that there was at least something pertaining to this method of teaching in this encyclopedia, especially because it is not well known. What was it that made you interested in adding a piece about Applied Behavior Analysis? Do you work with this method of teaching, or with children with autism? I would be interested to know what drove you to have an interest in Applied Behavior Analysis.

Autistic Perspective I'd like to see at least a mention of the movement against ABA but am too lazy to add it.

What appears below is an abridged quote from my autobiography at [1]. Lindsay Weekes, diagnosed as autistic in 1970.

"Some people thought to use me to connect with and cure their children. They missed the most fundamental point, or refused to entertain it if it was brought to their attention. They took refuge in "programs" such as ABA or Son Rise.

Because I was asked by so many people about ABA, I thought to understand it from the inside and so became a qualified ABA therapist". In the mid to late 1990s, Tim was my town's ABA pinup boy, the one who appeared in so many promotional and training videos, and I had the opportunity to work with him exclusively and extensively. I'd first met him in early intervention where he was regarded as low-functioning; he did not respond to others and had no language. It was an illusion: he was hyperlexic and at home could, and did, read aloud, although with little, if any, comprehension.

ABA taught him many things: to listen to people, to know the names of colours, to pick out and name members of his family.....or did it? Tim learned the names of coloured squares, but couldn't say what colour the sofa was. If he was told to stand up without any accompanying gesture, he sat still. If he was asked to name his mother when she was standing there in the flesh, he couldn't. He'd learned the names of all the squares, whether coloured or shaped or coloured and shaped, in much the same way as other boys might have named their toy soldiers. He even knew the names of the pictures. This one's called zebra, this one is Daddy and so on.

The fact is that Tim was quite an intelligent boy with major autism. He soon learned to get what he wanted by jumping through hoops. Correctly doing tricks made his day much easier. No-one seemed to notice, or wanted to notice, that he was relying on his prodigious memory to get by, which was why he could handle only three attributes (colour, shape and size) of any given object. No-one wanted to tell his parents that this king was naked."

I am not sure the purpose of this lengthy personal testimony. "the kind is naked" is not quite the appropriate metaphoric extension. The "king is not fully clothed" and perhaps has a little breeze under his skirts would be more like it. The article clearly indicates that the child was largely helped, even if some deficits remained. This is not naked... --florkle 19:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

---

It's legitimate to criticize any method or therapy. However, in an encyclopedia, criticism should be supported by citation of published, peer-reviewed research or analysis. Nesbit 20:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

So should advocacy, where the therapy is controversial, especially on ethical grounds.--209.86.4.233 08:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC) The above comment was left by me.--Dell Adams 08:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph in the ABA and Autism section which links it to Ethical_challenges_to_autism_treatment#Ethical_challenges_to_applied_behavior_analysis at the very least that helps to add some neutrality by taking into account the fact that the therapy and its use for Autism treatment is disputed on ethecal grounds, I also cited CIBRA as the organisations web site contains links to several published articles documenting some cases which give rise to the concerns meantioned. I hope the addition is up to scratch however I did feel for the article to be neutral there has to be some reference to the debatable ethics used in parts of the feild as ethics are of significant importance to therapy. MttJocy 14:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Definition of ABA

"The State of Florida, where ABA is widely used" - this statement is not supported. "ABA", or teaching based on behavior analytic principles, is used in many parts of the USA and the rest of the world. It may be more prevalent close to universities where ABA is taught. Rsaffran 18:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible confusions?

"It is also suggested that ABA and discrete trials are less effective for improving language than 'naturalized' teaching. Naturalized teaching mimics the use of language in the natural environment, focusing on manding (requesting) tacting (labeling) receptive language (physical manipulation based on commands or requests) and the other functions of language[9]."

There seems to be some confusions on this page. Applied Behavior Analysis may be widely used to refer specifically to teaching children with autism or other developmental disabilities, but it is a field of study, not a technique.

Also, the quote above regarding ABA versus naturalized teaching doesn't make sense. Manding and tacting for example, come straight out of Skinner's Verbal Behavior -- this is definitely behavior analysis.

Terms are confusing, but it seems that this page should be cleaned up to reflect a more technical understanding... Milktoast 08:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Manding and tacting are the terminology, which is from skinner, but they are used anywhere language is taught. I think the point the person is trying to get at is that ABA to teach phonemes (individual sounds/sylabyls, wow I don't know how to spell that word) is less useful than teaching whole words or functional equivalents. That's how naturalized versus old-school ABA a la skinner was explained to me. WLU 12:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to Behavioural modification pointing here. Hope it livens up the discussion Dnavarro

I think you mean Behavior modification. See also links are better integrated into the body of the text also. WLU 19:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think understamnding of ABA is limited and outdated. Children are, generally, taught to mimic verbal speach with words broken down into individual sounds if necessary, in order to make it possible to prompt and shape the word. alongside this, or as soon as it is accessible, children are taught receptive and expressive language so they know what the word means that they can say. A lot of children have natural environment teaching included in their programme if it is appropriate for them. People need to realise that ABA isn't a set thing it is adapted where necessary, each child's programme is taylor made for themselves... Okocha, Senior ABA Therapist for 6 years. 25/04/2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.224.18 (talk • contribs).

Feel free to update the page, but be sure to adhere to the five pillars, particularly the points on avoiding point of view additions, and reliable sources. Also useful is WP:NOT, particularly #4 of indiscriminate collection, not an instruction manual. Though adding content is a valuable thing, please ensure it adheres to guidelines. --WLU 11:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of "punishment"

The use of punishment in ABA therapy is highly unethical. The point is to reward and or guide proper behavior, not to punish bad behavior. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.237.243.252 (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree with the above comment. Punishment doesn't work with any child, positive reinforcement is much more effective. Punishment is fundamentaly wrong especially children who don't understand why the thing they do is inappropriate or are acting inappropriately through frustration...Okocha —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.224.18 (talk • contribs).

Just my $0.03... Positive reinforcement should always be tried first. Always. If there are problem behaviors, extinction or differential reinforcement should be tried next. However, in an extremely limited set of circumstances, punishment can be useful, and sometimes even necessary. When all other recourses have been tried, or a dangerous behaviour must be corrected immediately, punishment is sometimes the only option.

"From an ethical standpoint it can be argued that since punishment can be used in a therapeutic way to suppress future occurence of maladaptive behavior, not using punishment, especially in situations where other procedures have been tried unsuccessfully, withholds a potentially effective treatment and maintains the client in a dangerous and uncomfortable state." -Cooper, Heron, Heward, Applied Behavior Analysis, page 412 (2nd hand reference). -Richard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archfool (talk • contribs)

Punishment does work, if it doesn't, you aren't doing it properly (a la the definition of punishment). What people are getting at here is that punishment is not the preferred option. This is not the place to debate the ethics of punishment by the way, this is the place to discuss changes to the main ABA page. If you have reliable sources saying why punishment is not the preferred option, feel free to cite them as you add to the text - you could also create a separate section that discusses punishment in greater detail. Just make sure to source it. --WLU 11:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Proven?

In the ABA and Autism section, it's mentioned that ABA is a proven method for treating autism (the only one in fact). However the 'proof' is higly controversial at best. All of the 'evidendence' cited come from journals and sites that actively advocated ABA. They are, therefore, in no way unbiased. On a more personal note I do not trust any Journal that deals with Autism as if it is a form of retardation. Robrecht 16:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The articles are all from peer-reviewed scientific journals, which are pretty much the highest standard of proof that exists. Of course they advocate for ABA, they advocate for it because it is proven. The scientific method is what attempts to remove bias from the research. If you've got any other type of treatment that has been tested empirically, and is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and has reported positive results that have been replicated, put the reference on the page and the text can be changed.

ABA is prove, it is the other methods that are controversial and biased. WLU 19:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As an autist myself and as brother to a psychologist, the most common criticism I hear of ABA is that it doesn't help children to actually 'cope' with their autism, it merely teaches them to mask it in public and in fact it only succeed in doing this through some kind of Pavlovian reaction. At best I'd say it doesn't count as a 'treatment', because it doesn't remove or even reduce the 'symptoms' of autism, it merely makes them less outwardly apparent. At worst I'm personally of the opinion that it isn't a treatment for autism, because autism isn't a disease or disorder and therefore cannot be treated. Now one might argue that I'm not an authority, but because I am an autist, I'm an expert on that subject through personal experience at least. But that's not exactly how Wikipedia works, so I won't press it. Robrecht 21:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's one thing I did want to add and that is that you're using a circular arguement here. You argue that: a. It's proven because a number of articles that advocate it say so, and, b. It's advocated by these articles, because it's proven. So I'd still like to see an unbiased source. Robrecht 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

See scientific method for why it's not tautological and is as unbiased as any method is likely to be - I'd trust the Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis far more than I'd trust Steven Gutstein or Barry Neil Kaufman opinion, or the opinion of parents involved in their programs. See ethical challenges to autism treatment and autism rights movement for other stuff - you might find something of interest there, and something closer to your own experience of things.

Built into the scientific method is the process that attempts to remove bias, which the non-controlled 'evaluations' of other treatments - it's part of the reason why many treatment programs do not invite scientific researchers to examine their programs. Controlled, unbiased methodical examination of the programs would reveal they don't actually help people.

There's more, but it'd take up more space. The fact that the proofs are in peer-reviewed scientific publications enhances their credibility irrespective of the journal titles. Journal titles captures broad interest areas, not specific approaches or viewpoints.

Anyway, if you can find statements to the contrary that meet WP:RS it can be put in, but that's going to be tricky given the standard of proof required for the article. You could also ask for a peer review of the statement, though I don't know if it would actually happen. WLU 22:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaken in regards to my intent. You seem the think my emphasis was on the word 'only', but it wasn't. I don't think there are ANY proven or viable treatments for autism. You keep referring to your skepticism of other 'treatments', but I don't know what you could possibly be trying to achieve with them if you did understand my point. My skepticism of such treatments rivals or surpasses your own, I merely include ABA in the 'treatments' I'm skeptical of. Any way, the article on scientific method you linked to states quite clearly that the study must be objective, which the advocated of the treatment obviously aren't. More over I have a problem with the way 'success' is tested in these trails, namely by administering a test before and after the 'treatment'. The problem however is that the test and 'treatment' are one and the same thing: the victi.. erhm subject is administered a test and when the answers given are not satisfactory, or even absent, the subject is put through ABA, which consist of the the same or similar questions as those in the test being posed over and over to the subject, with the answer initially given along with each question and then positive or negative reinforcement is applied based on whether the subject responds satisfactory. At the end of the 'treatment' the same test as before is administered and if the subject answers correctly this time, the 'treatment' is deemed succesfull. However the questions are drilled and the answers are Pavlovian at best. As Lindsay Weeks noted earlier on this Talk page, an ABA patient can generally only answer the questions they've been taught to answer and tend to lack the comprehension of the context BEHIND the question. All in all I view ABA less as a viable treatment and more as an effective form of brainwashing. Again I note that ABA does not in any way mediate the 'symptoms' of autism, nor does it lend the subject any understanding of how to deal with them... All it does is teach the subject tricks for the advocates of this 'treatment' to pat themselves on the back over. Robrecht 01:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

response to above: before you begin your discussion, you may want to read up on your definitions. Your reference to "negative reinforcers" is completely incorrect. Also, in behavior analysis, practioners don't try to "deter" anything. They look to increase, decrease, or maintain behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.44.137 (talk • contribs)

this means that he was lacking discrimination skills. this should have been worked on if this was the case. this is not a "result" of ABA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.44.137 (talk • contribs)

Paragraph from main article

I removed the following section:

• Accounts from previous subjects - Autistic adults who, as children, were subjected to ABA as a means of normalizing them have spoken out concerning their experiences. They describe their treatment as abusive and many are now suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. This has become a major issue within the Autism rights movement. Everything I Needed to Know about Life I Learned from my Behavioral Therapist

This will require a far better reference than the attached one. It does not meet WP:RS. Particularly note this section of the RS page. PTSD is a pretty big thing to throw around about the only validated treatment for autism, and ABA has changed since its inception - punishment is now a much smaller part of practice. WLU 13:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The PTSD of former Lovaas victims is well documented, however I do intend to add better sources, including from the blog of former victim Jerod Poore. Additionally if you go around calling ABA a "validated" "treatment" for autism you can't expect anyone to take you seriously, because you don't deserve to be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ensrifraff (talk • contribs) 09:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Please read WP:RS - a blog is not a valid source. If you have sources, add them, otherwise the information will continue to be removed. Unless Mr. Poore's accounts are documented in a reliable form, such as a scientific journal or other peer-reviewed document (such as the documents which are used to support ABA as a treatment for autism), they are ineligible for inclusion. This is an exceptional claim, and requires a very solid source. Also note WP:TALK and WP:NPA - being rude can get you blocked and it does not contribute to improving the page. If contributions are to be taken seriously, they must be sourced and neutral. WLU 19:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In this case a blog is most definitely a reliable source as it is a firsthand account from someone who was subjected to the tortures of ABA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ensrifraff (talk • contribs) 17:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

A blog, and an individuals account are not allowed as sources. See here and here. Blogs are not reliable sources, and are not allowed to justify information on the page. If you can find non-blog, secondary sources of this material, that can be included. However, this source is very POV, as is the paragraph you are attempting to include. Find a better source, and write it from a NPOV rather than reverting to the above version. WLU 18:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You are hardly one to lecture others about the use of NPOV. Your continued assertations that ABA is the "only validated treatment" for autism, or is even validated, could easily be refuted by anyone with the slightest knowledge of autism. The fact that Lovaas used a cherry-picked group to begin with, and the fact that his results could not be replicated, immediately cast doubt upon his claims. Secondly there is the question of your insistence that the Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis is evidence of its usefulness because it is a peer-reviewed journal is inherently irrational, because the aforementioned is written and maintained by practitioners and supporters of ABA, and its articles reviewed by the same. You could, likewise, use the publications of the Eugenics Records Office, also reviewed by practitioners of the same, as evidence in favor of eugenics. Either stand down in your objection to the use of a previous subject's blog or stand down in your defense of JABA; logic demands no less. Thirdly, you have repeatedly shown hostility to anyone who is skeptical of ABA, to the extent that it is implausible to suggest that you do not have a strong personal agenda in favor of ABA, unbefitting an administrator. I formally move that mediation be requested on this matter, as the question of your impartiality, or rather lack thereof, has been entirely settled.--Ensrifraff 08:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:RS, find some reliable sources for your claims, then put in your info. Read policy. Peer reviewed journal trump every other source available. This is not me, this is policy. I'm hostile to people who push irrational POV they can't back up except through blogs. Even were I totally ignorant of autism, I would still remove the blog as an unreliable source. Read the policy.

You are welcome to take this to moderation, where you will find that all regular contributors back up my assertion that a) blogs are not reliable sources and b) peer-reviewed journals are the essence of reliable sources.

Finally, I am not an administrator, just a regular editor. How about you find an administrator, and ask them for their opinion about the matter. I think you'll find that though I may be a bit of a dick, but my citation of policy is absolutely correct. Here's a couple: User:Arcadian, User:Rebecca, User:Lexicon, User:Jredmond and User:Khym Chanur. The first I know, the rest are random.

You can also put in a request for comment if you'd like. Which will support my actions, and probably tell you to back off. WLU 15:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I read the policy and simply put, you are a liar. "Wikipedia welcomes material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly material published by peer-reviewed journals. However, these may be outdated by more recent research, or may be controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly and non-scholarly treatments. Wikipedia articles should therefore ideally rely on all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, scholarly and non-scholarly, so long as the sources are reliable." You have been deliberately lying about policy in order to ensure that this article remains as uncritical as possible.

In the meantime I intend to found a peer-reviewed journal of chiromancy, reviewed only by practitioners of the same, so that I may edit the Wikipedia page on that subject into an all-out endorsement of the practice. Any criticisms which are not backed up by peer review will be removed.--Ensrifraff 14:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

ABLLS

I’d like to say three things. First, I think the ABLLS is a very valuable assessment tool and I have used it numerous times, however, it’s placement as the second paragraph on a page about Applied Behavior Analysis is inappropriate. It is designed to help guide goals and program development for successful inclusion into Kindergarten, and as such has limited utility in the field as a whole. 75.6.129.103 07:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I was an ABA therapist for almost 2 years, we used the ABBLS exclusively to determine what teaching programs to use and to establish long-term progress. I know there's other instruments used, and they could definitely be added to the page, but the ABLLS is used pretty extensively. WLU 00:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that ABLLS is a part of "applied practice" (and a part of that chunk) and not "all of ABA (theoretical, experimental & applied), which encompasses a lot of work in dozens of areas". Thus, ABLLS, which is used extensively in one particular area (applied settings with autism) is not a reasonable starting point for /the field as a whole/...? --florkle 05:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I re-read the section and I think I see your point better. I moved the ABLLS to a different part of the page. Incidentally, I also put in citation templates instead of the citations that were there, but it's a huge pain in the ass so I didn't do the entire page. WLU 18:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what citation templates are (yet!) ... :-( --florkle 18:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask (or imply) and ye shall receive Wikipedia:Citation templates. If you're interested in speeding up your learning curve, you might want to consider adoption. And here's a blatant plug for popups, they rule. WLU 20:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Shaping

Second, your shaping example is an example of physical prompting – not shaping. A better example would be one that you could take time in teaching (not one that might get the child’s hand bitten if not stopped) since pure shaping can be a time intensive process. If you would like to maintain the tooth brushing example, a better shaping scenario would be, “A child puts a toothbrush in his mouth, but does not know how to brush (i.e. how to hold or manipulate the handle of the toothbrush so that the brush part makes contact with the teeth in an up and down pattern). At first, for any way a child moves the brush in the mouth, he is praised (or reinforced in some other way such as with tokens that may be exchanged at a later point for a toy or an activity). Once the child consistently moves the toothbrush around the mouth, reinforcement for this step is faded, and a more sophisticated approximation of the final goal is reinforced, perhaps any movement in which any part of the head of the brush touches a tooth. Perhaps the next few steps would be reinforcing any time the brush touches a tooth, when the brush moves in contact with a tooth, and when the brush moves up or down in contact with a tooth, and so on until the final goal is reached.” --75.6.129.103 07:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I'll change it. WLU 00:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Language

Finally, I would like to say that I agree with the previous poster that manding and tacting are straight out of Verbal Behavior by B. F. Skinner and it is therefore incorrect to imply that these are not behavioral terms. However, I think it is a mistake to suggest that behavior analysts do not teach language in the natural environment. It is vitally important to teach in the natural environment to promote generalization by putting the student in contact with the natural reinforcers available in his or her environment. --75.6.129.103 07:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The original proceedures for teaching verbal behavior involved teaching individual phonemes and eventually linking them into words. The revolution of verbal behaviour in practice was the change from teaching from phonemes to teaching language functionally. That's where the distinction arises, but I think it is the rare situation where phoneme teaching is used now.

changes

added links to SKinner, operant conditing, jack michael. changed link from behaviorism (which is a weak page in understanding radical behaviorism) to Radical behaviorism which is better for understanding /this/ branch of philosophy/science.

Note that if the link is already on the page somewhere, it should not be in the see also section, and if possible the see also links should be embedded in the main text. I'll try to do so. WLU 00:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

okidokey --florkle 05:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Aversives

I removed the following paragraph, since it's not a good thing to pop up a disputed section with fact tags when another user has removed it. How's 'bout we try to find some references and edit the paragraph here, before putting it on the page? WLU 20:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Below paragraph re-added to main article on

21:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

* '''Aversives''' - ABA has been criticized for the use of [[punishment (psychology)|aversive stimuli]] to control behavior. While this does not represent the field as a whole, it does have precedent in both research <ref>{{cite journal | last = Risley | first = T. R. | year = 1968 | title = The effects and side effects of punishing the autistic behaviors of a deviant child | journal = Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis | volume = 1 | pages = 21-34 | url = http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1310972 | pmid = 1310972 | accessdate = 2007-06-01}}</ref> and in some current applied settings.<ref>{{cite web | title = Matt Israel's Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) defends the use of aversives | url = http://www.judgerc.org/writeup3.html | accessdate = 2007-06-01}} for example</ref> Current practices discourage the use aversive control as the primary means of behavior change.<ref>{{cite web | last = Sterner | first = Carolyn | url = http://rci.rutgers.edu/~sterner/aba.htm | title = Hand in Hand: What is ABA? | accessdate = 2007-06-02 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.learningtolearnsydney.com/About%20ABA.htm | title = About ABA | accessdate = 2007-06-02 }}</ref>

references

Some possible references

• [2]
• [3] (not very reliable)
• [4] ditto
• [5] shows old-school
• [6] ditto 2 & 3

Unfortunately there's nothing I could find with a quick google scholar search, but we might be able to dig something up. WLU 20:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed a few of the objections ("robotic" etc) which went unnoticed. My mistake. As for citations I was going to cite from JEAB/JABA on the articles I'd come across using aversive/punishment measures (I believe for example Lovaas used some in his initial research.) As for "current state of the field" I wasn't sure what to use, although I have Alberto & Thomas ABA For the Classroom which documents the use of aversive practices in that setting to some extent and ethical measures relating to it. But I am ok with developing here, sure. --florkle 00:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Matt Israel has an aversives piece on his webpage (unfortunately, as I am opposed to the use of aversive control and I don't find his defense plausible). --florkle 00:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If Matt Israel is a noted scholar in the field, his page is tenuously OK as a reliable source, though we'd have to be careful what we actually say; any challenges to anything controversial from a personal webpage and we may have to pull it. I moved your comment to keep it out of the 'working area', the ideal text I'd like to paste back onto the page. WLU 17:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the use of aversives is controversial. I don't think many people actually defend it, per se. I attended his (Israel's) presentation at the last ABA (San Diego) and he presented data "like a multiple baseline" except that it had some obvious problems - for instance at least two of his graphs showed a trend in the lowering direction which the aversive 'treatment' lowered. It might have been more than two, but the slides weren't up very long. Moreover, he mentioned how some students ask to be placed on the aversives program as they seem to have more access to reinforcers. This suggests that the "positives only" is a lesser program of positives (i.e. the aversives are aversives "plus more positives"). He said, in response to an audience question, that it took from 11-12 months before students were placed on aversives, but one testimonial (he played a video with testimonials in it) said he went on aversives after only one week (!). So I don't think that this issue has many "non-controverial" proponents?

--florkle 20:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

JEAB/JABA and perhaps some TAVB articles (only hard copy) which might show the lack of aversives in research. --florkle 00:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hardcopy is perfectly acceptable, but unless the articles themselves make note of the lack of aversives, our pointing out that there are none means it's a bit too close to original research for my tastes. WLU 17:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I added 2 source citations. I am having trouble finding the California law that refers to the ethical/legal use of aversive stimulation, but I am looking for it. --florkle 22:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I added two of the less reliable sources - they are less reliable, but there are two of them and they do say the same thing, plus one is by an ABA specialist, which adds weight to her statements. Both also use references, which moves them up as far as reliability goes in my mind. I can't retrieve the Judge Rotenberg Center link. Also moved and de-headered some stuff to make it easier to preview. WLU 12:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the paragraph looks pretty good, so I added it back to the main article. WLU 21:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I've moved the mediation tag to the talk page where it's supposed to go. See the last line of this page. --WLU 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am taking a break for a bit, but I am sure all will be well in the meanwhile. --florkle 21:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms section

Here's my criticisms of the info in the criticisms section.

In the case of Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia (Attorney general), the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that since the outcomes of ABA were unproven and the treatment itself is still experimental, it could not be considered a "core treatment" (one for which the province is required to pay). The decision quoted the original trial judge, noting that "the trial judge found only that in 'some cases' it may produce 'significant results'" [7]

A court in any country is not an ultimate authority on the effectiveness of a methodology. That is for peer-reviewed journals and researchers to debate. At best, this could be cited with the statement that not all jurisdictions accept ABA as a mandated treatment. Judges are not scientists and researchers and this court case does not overturn all the peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate its effectiveness. To oppose the pro- peer reviewed scientific articles requires other peer-reviewed articles criticizing ABA. In addition, this is a statement about reimbursement of health care costs rather than real effectiveness.

...ranging from its early dependency on aversives

ABA no longer relies as heavily on aversives, as documented in the paragraph that existed before it was replaced with the current one. It was sourced. Not the best sources, but still sourced.

(in the original experiments the aversive was a cattle prod)

Original experiments, which means that cattle prods are no longer used. At best this could be placed in the history section if a reliable source can be found. As is, it seems serves little purpose than a POV push on the roots of ABA

...to its goals of "extinguishing" even harmless autistic behavior such as stimming and rendering the child "undistinguishable from peers."

Punishment and aversives are pretty much used just for dangerous behaviour now, not stimming. Again an idea for the history section. In addition, it's very POV.

Michelle Dawson, an autistic woman, filed an intervener factum in the Auton case challenging ABA on ethical grounds. [8]

I don't see the point of this in this section. It could be put in its own bullet of 'ethical challenges', but would require much more context and is really better off on either her page, or the ethical challenges to autism treatment page. WLU 00:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to WLU

A court in any country is not an ultimate authority on the effectiveness of a methodology. That is for peer-reviewed journals and researchers to debate. At best, this could be cited with the statement that not all jurisdictions. Judges are not scientists and researchers and this court case does not overturn all the peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate its effectiveness. To oppose the pro- peer reviewed scientific articles requires other peer-reviewed articles criticizing ABA. In addition, this is a statement about reimbursement of health care costs rather than real effectiveness.

The issue is really not whether a judge is "an ultimate authority on the effectiveness of methodology," the issue is one of fact, this one being the fact that this statement was made in a court of law by a trial judge, and finally backed up unanimously by the Canadian Supreme Court. That renders the criticism notable and worthy of inclusion in this article.

You may remember that I tried to explain to you why the JABA cannot be used as a defense of ABA as its contributors and reviewers are ABA practitioners. It is certainly a valid source in a discussion of many aspects of ABA but not its defense.

Original experiments, which means that cattle prods are no longer used. At best this could be placed in the history section if a reliable source can be found. As is, it seems serves little purpose than a POV push on the roots of ABA

I said original experiments, and its "initial" use of aversives, as a historical criticism of ABA. You cannot remove one part of that statement without whitewashing history.

I don't see the point of this in this section. It could be put in its own bullet of 'ethical challenges', but would require much more context and is really better off on either her page, or the ethical challenges to autism treatment page.

The point, and you really shouldn't need this explained to you, is that this represents a criticism from historical record; in this case it comes from a case that was presented between the Supreme Court of Canada on the topic, a case which has its own Wikipedia page, making it valid for encyclopedic inclusion. You, however, have shown repeated hostility towards any edit that is not praiseful of ABA, so it is little surprise that you would find objection.--Ensrifraff 14:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

1. The Supreme Court info can be reflected in the article, but not as 'proof' of ABA's positive outcomes or lack thereof. And it should be a minor point, a single short sentence at most. Courts use evidence from scientists, not the other way around. Information is valid for inclusion on a page because of its relation to the topic, not because of it having a wikipedia page. And having a wikipedia page does not make the information right, eithical or worthy of inclusion, it just means it's notable enough not to be deleted. Court cases have bearing on the legal systems they are fought in, they are not universal, world-wide reflections of the state of medical treatment or practice standards.
2. JABA is a scientific journal, and scientific journals are the venue where the effectiveness of treatments are debated. Any valid scientific criticisms of ABA that pass peer review would be reported in JABA, or if not JABA, another scientific journal. It's not that I don't remember your comment, it's that you do not appear to understand what constitutes a reliable source. A peer-reviewed journal is a reliable source; if you disagree, I suggest you bring it up on the WP:RS talk page. JABA the ultimate place to discuss the validity of long-term outcomes of ABA treatment.
3. The cattle prod comment could be placed in the historical roots section, but it does not represent current ABA practices. It would be like having a section on the Spanish Inquisition in the modern article on Spain (or Catholicism) - part of history, but the risk of being burned at the stake are pretty close to zero. Cattle prods may be historical fact (though that really needs a reliable reference, and not a blog) but not a reflection of what ABA therapists are doing now. I'm not trying to whitewash history, I'm trying to write an encyclopedic article that accurately portrays the subject in an organized and verifiable fashion.
4. Please note the policy WP:NPA. As I said on the mediation page, I object more to your references and tone than the actual inclusion. Mediation isn't going to help much if you keep accusing me of POV without acknowleding your own biases and working towards a middle ground. I'm currently re-working the section, have a look. Please edit and comment on the talk page rather than reverting. WLU 17:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The page should be neutral and verifiable. Can we agree on that? A WP:RFC might be valuable, particularly on your JABA point. If other experienced editors say that I'm wrong in my interpretation of WP:RS in this regard, I'll cease my objections. WLU 17:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

1) The Supreme Court article is indeed valid, however you seem to be continually confused about Wikipedia policy, so I will restate it for you.

"Wikipedia welcomes material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly material published by peer-reviewed journals. However, these may be outdated by more recent research, or may be controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly and non-scholarly treatments. Wikipedia articles should therefore ideally rely on all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, scholarly and non-scholarly, so long as the sources are reliable."

I would consider the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling to be a significant treatment on the topic, and do not see how anyone can honestly say otherwise.

2) JABA is most certainly not "the ultimate place to discuss the validity of long-term outcomes of ABA treatment, because it is reviewed only by ABA practitioners and thus would never publish a criticism of ABA.

3) Refer to the Wikipedia policy quoted in #1.

4) My "agenda" as you might put it is to provide a more accurate story, including all relevant criticisms. Yours seems to be to turn this page into a puff piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ensrifraff (talk • contribs)

Your quotation to support your first point does not put judges above scientists and researchers. A judge's opinion in one country should not take precedence over multiple research studies. Also, the quotation about significant results came from a different case - the link was to a case that quoted the earlier judgement. I've included the earlier judgement in the article. The actual words are:

";;[51] There is no dispute that the autistic spectrum of mild to severe disability is a neurological disorder with a very poor prognosis historically. Autism is a mental disorder and early diagnosis and treatment are essential. There is a window of opportunity during which it is possible to treat autism and obtain, in some cases, significant results. The later the intervention, the poorer the prognosis.

[52] Current research has established, with some certainty, the efficacy of early intervention in assisting many children to achieve significant social and educational gains. The expert witnesses agree that the most effective behavioural therapies are those based on principles of ABA. There are no effective competing treatments. As Dr. Gresham stated, “there is no question that ABA is the treatment of choice for children presenting with autistic disorder based on over 35 years of research in the field.” He emphasized the fact that although replication of the Lovaas study was necessary, treatment should not be delayed awaiting the outcome.[9]"

The court case is stating that ABA is the only treatment for autism, there are no other effective treatments. The entire case is an attempt to try to mandate that ABA be paid for by the Canadian medical system, indicating, as said above, that ABA is the only real treatment for autism. The only thing that supports your arguments is the isolated quotation of 'in some cases', while ignoring the much stronger statements that ABA "...is the treatment of choice for children presenting with autistic disorder based on over 35 years of research in the field." I've updated the page accordingly.

Your second point indicates a misunderstanding of scientific publications - were ABA proven ineffective in a reliable, replicable manner, JABA, and if not JABA then any scientific journal would certainly publish said results - scientists have much to gain by disproving established theories. To your third point, blogs and first-hand accounts are not reliable sources, which is why I objected to its earlier inclusion. Finally, you are the only person to have used the word agenda on this page, both times in regards to me having one. WP:NPA. WLU 00:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

ABA & Homosexuality

The inclusion of the Rekers & Lovaas piece is an important part of the history of psychology/psychotherapy & behavior analysis dating back to a time when Homosexuality was viewed as a mental disorder (as the wiki page notes, it is still considered so in some areas). The down-playing of the senior author - Rekers - and playing up the co-author Lovaas is somewhat odd. A traditional notation is "Rekers & Lovaas" and a date. I have added a notation that behavior analysis, like almost all fields, is not a unified cohesive monolith and that it generated at least one opposing article in JABA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by florkle (talk • contribs)

I wrote it, feel free to change it. The reason I emphasized Lovaas is because I know of his connection with ABA, and from what I know, Lovaas is very important while I've never heard of Rekers. That's not to say Rekers isn't important (is it George Alan Rekers?) and if so, he should be added or his role expaded. Now, if Rekers provided the homophobia and Lovaas provided the ABA, Rekers role in the article isn't so important and could probably be left out. WLU 01:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a qualifier to the paragraph to make Lovaas' relationship more clear, if Rekers needs one too, feel free to add it. WLU

I also added citation templates where appropriate. The duplicate reference to the Rekers & Lovaas I merged into a single one - the PMID is a good link to have and is kept in the PMID part of the template, but the other one (neurodiversity.com I think) contains the text of the whole article so I kept that as the main URL. Otherwise, the reference itself is to the same paper, so there's not much point in having it twice. WLU

If you mean "ABA" as a name for a treatment method in Autism, then yes I see your point. If you mean ABA, as the applied arm of the experimental analysis of behavior, then I would offer that neither is closer or further from it than any biologist is closer or further from "biology". It is unusual to not sight the major author when citing a study as far as I can tell (although I have nothing other than the APA manual for that). This is a relatively minor study, done in a time that condoned what we now call homophobia (and I would agree with that). I am not sure of the purpose of including it except to include "Lovaas" in it - (perhaps he should have his own page? Does he?). --florkle 03:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to put comments in chronological order, with the newest comments at the bottom as per WP:TALK. Lovaas has his own page, and he's the first person to prove and publish in a journal that ABA was effective for treating autism. That's the big connection and why I thought it was noteworthy. Have a gander at re-writing if you'd like, I'm not too attached to it. WLU 12:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

I removed the following segment:

"However, as ABA is not a single organization, there remain practitioners that rely on aversives, sometimes extreme ones. The most notable of these cases is the Judge Rotenberg Center in Canton, Massachusetts, however that center remains controversial even among ABA practitioners."

This can't stay on the page without a citation, and a reliable one. It's an exceptional claim and requires a reliable source. It's a pretty extreme claim and must be sourced. WLU 00:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Task analysis

1. I think it would be useful for someone to explain in more detail the principles of task analysis as they apply to ABA. I would be happy to do this but I am new to Wikipedia and am still learning my way around; I am also reluctant to edit this article in particular due to its status.

Task analysis is the division of complex tasks into single observable skills. It is these skills that are then chained together to result in the complex task. A student may not need instruction in some skills, while needing repeated modeling or prompting for others. After observation, task analysis is applied to develop a unique plan for instruction that addresses the individual's needs. This allows instructor and student to focus on skills that are needed while providing authentic reinforcement (real consequences) for previously acquired skills that are part of the desired task.

2. In the main body of the text, the term "child" is used repeatedly. It would be more appropriate to use the term "student" as many service recipients are adults. 71.225.2.34 00:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The above comments were moved over from the ABA mediation page - that was the wrong place to put them. WLU 15:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. According to ABA theory, this methodology should work on any person, adult or child. Technically, it would even work on intelligent animals, too. ;)

I vote to change occurrances of 'child' to "student" or "person" or another compatible word. Archfool 15:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)