Talk:Applied behavior analysis

NPOV and criticism of ABA

This article is not written from a neutral point of view. Its edit history has included persistent removal of criticisms of ABA from a disability, LGBT, and autism rights perspective. It does not give due weight to those perspectives per WP:NPOV guidelines. Some embodiments of ABA have historically included the use of electrical stimulation devices (ESDs).

• In its ruling on ESDs, which banned ESDs, the FDA stated that "medical literature shows that ESDs present risks of a number of psychological harms including depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, fear, panic, substitution of other negative behaviors, worsening of underlying symptoms, and learned helplessness (becoming unable or unwilling to respond in any way to the ESD); and the devices present the physical risks of pain, skin burns, and tissue damage."

• In 2013, Juan Mendez, the U.N. special rapporteur on torture, asserted that “the rights of the students of the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center subjected to…electric shock and physical means of restraints have been violated under the U.N. Convention against Torture and other international standards.”

• Disturbing Behaviors: Ole Ivar Lovaas and the Queer History of Autism Science

• Comments made to FDA from Cameron Michael a JRC-affiliated psychologist

Furthermore, there are 'weasel' phrases within the article such as "It is also the gold standard treatment for that diagnosis as it is considered to be most effective according to the American Academy of Pediatrics." What exactly is a 'gold standard treatment'? The terms 'gold standard treatment' are not defined in the citation given.

Kdbeall (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

References

It is recognized by all I think that the article needs improving and there is an attempt above to decide on the best sources to use, as preparatory work for that. OTOH there has also been, across Wikipedia, something of an over-focus on what is apparently one rogue institution in America, which has had its own POV problems. Please add any great sources on ABA that you know of to that growing list ... Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I have undone your removal of my edit. The phrasing makes sense in scope. Please explain your reasoning within this talk page. Thanks.

Kdbeall (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

First of all, don't WP:EW as it is disruptive, and we've had enough drama on this topic recently already. When we're discussing ABA we should use sources which discuss ABA. Mentioning the JRC here seems off-topic, and savours of WP:COATRACKing, worsening the article's POV problem rather than improving it. (And I should say, the wider discussion on this is taking place at Talk:Discrete trial training, including how this topic space is partitioned - please participate if you can!) Alexbrn (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn (talk)

Regardless of your personal opinion of "drama" within this page, ignoring material facts about some controversial historical embodiments of ABA and its usage does not support WP:NPOV. My inclusion of references to JRC, in a limited and appropriate scope, supports WP:NPOV. I also saw you edited my personal talk page in regards to WP:EW. I am aware of the 3R rule. It's not good practice to, as WP:EW states, post a "generic warning template if you are actively involved in the edit war yourself; it can be seen as aggressive. Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down."

Kdbeall (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so you've shown yourself as an edit warrior and POV pusher, unwilling/unable to engage with the points raised, good for that to be clear. The drama was at WP:ANI, not here. On edit-warring, you have been warned. Alexbrn (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Could you explain your comment "we've got another one" within the edit summary? I object to being described as an "edit warrior and POV pusher, unwilling/unable to engage with the points raised." WP:PERSONAL. My edits have been made in good faith to improve the article. Could you explain your position on adding the following to either the "Use of aversives" or "Controversy" section? The edit reverted had the sentence, "In regards to the usage of ESDs, the FDA stated that "only one facility is using these devices in the United States, the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center (JRC) in Canton, Massachusetts, and estimates between 45 and 50 individuals are currently being exposed to the device." WP:COATRACKing does not apply because my reference to JRC was limited in scope and preceded by a valid context for a brief mention of JRC. WP:COATRACK states that "It would be reasonable to include brief information of the background behind a key detail." This is a key detail because it establishes the scale of use of ESDs. Thank you. Kdbeall (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Another edit warrior, as you are repeatedly forcing your text into the article when the WP:ONUS is to achieve consensus. The source is not about ABA so irrelevant here. So far as I can tell what went on at the JRC was some kind of home-brewed aversion therapy dreamt up by the guy running the place. Alexbrn (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

"Home-brewed aversion therapy dreamt up" marginalizes the issue. The JRC is a multi-million dollar facility founded by a Harvard educated psychologist. In comments made to the FDA, a JRC-affiliated psychologist asserted that "all textbooks used for thorough training of applied behavior analysts include an overview of the principles of punishment, including the use of electrical stimulation." See the "Aversive comments - part 1" section. Kdbeall (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course the organization itself is going to try to claim legitimacy. But we know from our cited sources that the use of aversives has been long deprecated within the mainstream. You're going to need to show source explicitly tying ABA to the FDA ban to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kdbeall: Don't let his dismissal of your opinion get on your nerves. He doesn't have a monopoly on how to interpret these sources, and the JRC's use of electric shocks was certainly not "some kind of home-brewed aversion therapy dreamt up by the guy running the place". Matthew Israel borrowed the idea from Ivar Lovaas (who is sometimes called the father of ABA), and initially implemented if with the SIBIS, which was an FDA approved device. When the SIBIS proved not to be powerful enough, he invented the Graduated electronic decelerator, which was also cleared by the FDA. The JRC is a large and powerful organization with influence over major behavioral groups like ABA International, not some marginal fringe group. They get their licence to operate from the state. As you have pointed out (and sourced in the article) all textbooks on ABA discuss the use of punishment. This should not be whitewashed from the article. Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Masters thesis?

This[1] edit appears to be an addition of a Masters thesis. If we are looking to improve source quality we should be going in the opposite direction (especially to high-quality published secondary sources) as low-quality sourcing like this worsens the POV problem, as does having in Wikipedia's voice the POV that this source "explains" something. Alexbrn (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Within the controversy section, it is applicable because it is a political opinion by a well-known autistic activist about ABA. Citing from a thesis is more reliable than citing, say, a personal blog. My position is that WP:MEDRS should apply to most material herein with exceptions to the controversy and history sections. I have changed the word "explains" to "commented." Kdbeall (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing in the WP:PAGs to support your thinking. Masters theses are unreliable unless they have known significant impact, and without secondary coverage of this primary source, it is undue. Is there such coverage? Alexbrn (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The masters thesis is being used to source an opinion. We even allow blogs for that. The use of the source in this context should be fine. Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Except for the WP:PAGs, which I have already referenced. Looks like POV-pushing. Would you also allow a master thesis which said electric shocks were an excellent idea to normalize autistic people? Start ignoring the rules and everything can go very bad ... Alexbrn (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of ignoring the rules. I am doing no such thing. And yes, I would allow such a thesis if it were being used as a source for an opinion (Matthew Israel's, for example). We would, of course, have the use that statement in a context where is was clear that it is untrue. Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

We should avoid unreliable sources, and avoid primary sources unless secondary sources give us reason to think them due. That is kind of basic. I shall raise a noticeboard query, as this looks like a further extension of the issues we've been having on other autism-related topics. Alexbrn (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn the example given is a strawman argument. In your example, WP:MEDRS would apply as it is an assertion about a medical claim. The edit being discussed in this thread is about a political opinion made about ABA so WP:MEDRS source rules do not apply.Kdbeall (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn: We most certainly do not need a secondary sources for a quote. If there is any genuine doubt about the reliability of this quote, please present it here. And this discussion is indicative of problems we have been having on other autism-related topics. To be more specific, you have been misapplying the rules to argue for your preferred version while at the same time accusing others of POV. I see in the previous section another misapplication of SYNTH to try to block from the article that electric shocks are an ABA thing. I don't even know how you get that idea. There are tons of sources linking these shocks to ABA. Try this one, for example. So from now on let's correctly apply the rules and not just use them to our advantage. Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mention WP:MEDRS, you alone raised it. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, masters theses are unreliable unless they can be shown to have had significant impact. Per NPOV, to determine proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources. To repeat, the problem here is with reliability and POV. In general, before hand-waving about "the rules", it helps to some basic WP:CLUE about them. Alexbrn (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, the POV tag was placed by Kdbeall in response to the recent removal of content about the use of aversives in ABA for the "treatment" of autism, homosexuality, and "gender disturbance". We are discussing the return of that material, not its further removal. While Kdbeall did raise the issue of MEDRS, and not you, let's bear in mind that he is a newbie (<200 edits), so we should introduce him gently to the rules, rather than beating him over the head with them. Sending him a level three warning to an editor that you are engaged in a dispute with is a civility violation, and if I remember correctly, you did the same to me when I was new. As for the quote, I see that it was made by Lydia Brown. Her website makes it clear that she welcomes and responds to contact. If there is any doubt as to the legitimacy of the quote, we can just asked her to verify it and publish the response on her blog, which is considered reliable per WP:ABOUTSELF. I think that would be a much nicer way to introduce this newbie to the rules than a level three warning. Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

You are ignoring the WP:PAGs I quoted. Nobody is questioning the "legitimacy" of the quote (i.e. I'm sure it's what was written). The problem for Wikipedia is that masters theses are unreliable, and their use undue. Since I thought you had grasped the concept from elsewhere the goal is to find the WP:BESTSOURCES and use them, this push to use an unreliable source is ... quite something. Alexbrn (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS makes it very clear that reliability depends on context, and is a matter of judgement. As no one here (including you) doubts the authenticity of the quote, it probably doesn't need to be sourced to the New York Times. But the issue is moot, because I can just contact Lydia Brown through her website to get the quote verified on her blog. This is a solution that should please all of us. Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

No because that is not the issue. To repeat: to determine proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources. Just because somebody's said something (in an unreliable source) about the world, does not mean it's due. This is the essence of NPOV. To say something about the autism rights movement, we need to find (good) sources on that. Wikipedia editors deciding for themselves what primary sources matter, and pushing them is a species of original research. Alexbrn (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, the issue is reliability. You have now switched it to weight, which is moving the goalposts. And original research is not even related to what we are discussing here. Let's try to correctly apply the guidelines. Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue is twofold, as I have consistently said - reliability and weight. It is original research to present primary sources, especially with editorial analysis as has been done here ("similarly argued") yes. Alexbrn (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

If you are concerned about the word "similarly", we can just remove it. And this viewpoint (that the goals of ABA are unethical) is quite thoroughly discussed in reliable sources, and even in the scientific literature (see here). The article benefits from quotes like this to illustrate the point. Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Great, then produce those reliable sources so we can cite them. The problem will then be solved. Alexbrn (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Just did. Unfortunately, science isn't big on quotes. That's what we have blogs for. Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've cleared out the thesis, ready for the reliable source as replacement. Might this[2] be useful? Alexbrn (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I see lots of quotes, but none of them seem as direct and relevant to the topic as the one you just removed. I'd rather just give it a day or two and wait for Lydia Brown respond. Then we can just "upgrade" the source for the quote without removing good content. Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The whole point is to summarize good sources, and not to have some favoured POV which one then tries to source even it if means using something weak. That would be textbook POV-pushing. A masters thesis was never going to be a suitable source. Alexbrn (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

So we're back to accusations of POV pushing, which means we've gone full circle here. The whole point was to get a quote to illustrate the POV expressed in scientific literature. I'll just wait for the quote to be verified. Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't "get quotes" to "verify" things which we (as editors) think is important. And yes, that would be POV-pushing. We reflect what high-quality, published, mainly secondary sources are saying on the topic. We are required to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Significance is determined by secondary coverage. You have said this topic is quite thoroughly (your emphasis) discussed in reliable sources, so I look forward to seeing you deliver something based on that. Alexbrn (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It is an accepted practice to let living people verify facts about themselves for inclusion in articles related to them by publishing to a blog or a website. The quote illustrates the common POV (published in high quality sources) that ABA's goal of promoting normality is unethical. Scientific literature is overkill here, and if this doesn't prove the significance of the debate I somehow doubt that popular press will change your mind. Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Alexbrn and Wikiman2718 it would be more constructive to discuss overhauling the controversy section as a whole. Statements such as it is "Autism advocates contend that it is cruel to try to make autistic people 'normal' without consideration for how this may affect their well-being" aren't being given context. Finn Gardiner, writing in the anthology book All the Weight of Our Dreams, claimed that "clinicians, teachers, and family members would frame my being autistic as a series of deficits and unwanted traits that had to be expunged in order to make me "indistinguishable from peers," because acting openly autistic was a sin against the holy gods of ABA and Ivar Lovaas, and every other methodology that aimed to extinguish autism, rather than work to a society that included us. Flapping my hands? Unthinkable. Talking about my special interests? How dare I. Inadvertently making social gaffes? Time to be screamed at for five minutes straight until I'm so filled with shame that the idea of trying to get close to people strikes terror into my heart." Including sources like that would improve this article. Kdbeall (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Existing sources can also help. Within the Atlantic article "Is the Most Common Therapy for Autism Cruel?," it describes how "There is increasing evidence, for example, that children with apraxia, or motor planning difficulties, can sometimes understand instructions or a request, but may not be able to mentally plan a physical response to a verbal request" e.g. "Kedar received 40 hours a week of traditional ABA therapy, in addition to speech therapy, occupational therapy and music therapy. But he still could not speak, communicate nonverbally, follow instructions or control his behavior when asked, for instance, to pick up the correct number of sticks. Kedar understood the request, but was unable to coordinate his knowledge with his physical movement. He was humiliated when the ABA therapist reported that he had 'no number sense.'" Kdbeall (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks a lot for pointing out a constructive path here. That was much needed. Here are two more sources on the ethics controversy. Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Introduction Section

Cpotisch I appreciate your efforts. Some of the claims made in your edits need citations. For example, "ABA is controversial within the autism rights movement, the broader disability rights movement, and much of the scientific field." What exactly is 'much of the scientific field'? I don't see evidence of controversy about ABA beyond the autistic rights movement in the sources listed. Kdbeall (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll find some sources to back up the "much of the scientific field." That said, my claim that it is controversial is backed up by those three sources, and it really is not typical to have a sentence that long describing all its applications; it's redundant, and is phrased in such a way that I think the purpose is to just argue in favor of ABA. So I'm going to add the word "controversial" back, and trim that paragraph, but will leave the section you objected to as is. Cpotisch (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't kept up to date with this discussion, but I removed all of the POV from the lead section so I think the POV tag can be removed from the article now unless there is something else I'm missing from this discussion. ATC ^{. Talk} 02:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I feel the sentence of "ABA is controversial within the autism rights movement due to its emphasis on normalization instead of acceptance and a history of, in some embodiments of ABA and its predecessors, the use of aversive electric shocks" is more accurate than "It is considered controversial by some within the autism rights movement due to its history of, in some embodiments of what was once called behavior modification and its predecessors, the use of aversive consequences." From the Spectrum article, "Ne’eman cites a 2008 survey of leaders and scholars in the field of ‘positive behavior interventions’ — ABA techniques that emphasize desirable behaviors instead of punishing disruptive ones. Even among these experts, more than one-quarter regarded electric shock as sometimes acceptable, and more than one-third said they would consider using sensory punishment — bad smells, foul-tasting substances or loud or harsh sounds, for example. Ne’eman calls these numbers 'disturbing'.” I can change it to "ABA is considered to be controversial by some within the autism rights movement due to its emphasis on normalization instead of acceptance and a history of, in some embodiments of ABA and its predecessors, the use of aversives such as electric shocks." Kdbeall (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I would remove the normalization because that’s not the goal of early ABA interventions. Researchers have used the term “indistinguishable” and “optimal outcome” to describe some individuals who loose the ASD diagnosis and fully overcome the social communication and learning challenges without any changes occurring in their physiology but that’s not the emphasis or the goal. But, it’s misinterpreted as “normalization” by some in the high functioning autism community. Maybe rewording to this: "ABA is considered to be controversial by some within the autism rights movement due to a history of, in some embodiments of ABA and its predecessors, the use of aversives such as electric shocks, and a belief that it has an emphasis on normalization instead of acceptance." ATC ^{. Talk} 18:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

What is written currently is a run-on sentence and not grammatically correct. I'll add a reference to another source and change 'normalization' to 'indistinguishability.' Side note: 'high functioning' and 'low functioning' are becoming outdated terms! There are autistics who were labeled 'low functioning' who have gone on to university studies. Kdbeall (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

“Indistinguishable” is an outcome ‘’sometimes’’ reported in the research literature but that’s not the emphasis of early ABA interventions; the emphasis is to reinforce behaviors that replace aggressive and self-injurious behaviors, as well as to increase their autonomy, quality of life, and teach a variety of other skills, such as language, academics, and adaptive functioning (daily living skills), so that can be misunderstood as trying to “normalize” by some in the high functioning autism community, but it’s really to teach new skills. ATC ^{. Talk} 17:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Page image featuring punishment and reward

The current image near Applied_behavior_analysis#Reinforcement (File:ABA_2.png) is extremely alarming to me. I am not familiar with the current use of aversive stimuli in applied behavior analysis; is the use of bleach and hot peppers commonplace today? If this is the case, I think such a practice should be listed under the Controversies section along with the already-mentioned history of electroshock and physical striking as aversives. clonk bonk 02:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I've never heard of bleach or hot peppers being used in today's ABA. It's certainly not commonplace. The image appears to be original research. IMO, the image should be removed. CatPath ^{meow at me} 22:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Severe Inaccuracies in terms of omitted research

I was looking through this article under the efficacy section it fails to cite decades of research indicating the effectiveness of ABA which overwhelming support and out number any articles stating the opposite. Instead this article cites a couple of the few articles that states ABA is not effective. As such this article is extremely misleading and such be changed in order to display a clear majority of the research which is in support of the effectiveness of aba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3015:150C:C000:D1A2:E85E:6807:C2EB (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

List of reliable medical sources supporting your claim about decades of research and their conclusions welcome. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Non-Neutral Viewpoints on ABA therapy

I understand that ABA therapy has been criticized for being seen as "dog training" humans with autism but that is simply not true. ABA therapy is a scientific-method based therapy to help remove negative and harmful behaviors often associated with ASD. Since this stigma has been disproven, after the criticism section should be statements on why these criticisms are outdated and false. Kbischoff99 (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

References

The sentence about "dog training" probably doesn't belong in the lead, but I'm not sure why you cited the source from the psychology group to counter the claim that ABA is like "dog training." The webpage says nothing about dog training. If you're using the site to claim that ABA is effective, then you should seek better sources, specifically secondary sources in the academic literature. This website sells ABA services - of course they're going to put ABA in a positive light and ignore the meta-analyses that demonstrate the low quality of the randomized clinical trials that support ABA. CatPath ^{meow at me} 10:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The scientific evidence for ABA is weak[3][4][5], riddled with undisclosed conflicts of interest[6][7], and has systematically failed to investigate harms[8], for which there is nevertheless significant evidence[9][10] which demands further research. ABA is also conceptually based on behaviourism, which is not a widely supported paradigm in modern psychology. I strongly question the claim that it is 'scientific method-based'. Oolong (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Many problems with recent extensive edits

There have been a number of issues with the material added to the article since late last year. A lot of it came from an IP here [11] and here [12], but subsequent edits by others have added to the problems. In short, (1) advocacy sites and blogs are cited rather than secondary academic sources from experts; (2) when appropriate sources are cited, the content of the sources are mischaracterized; (3) interpretations are made that are not made in the sources cited (WP:OR); (4) one entire section is made up almost entirely of quotes from a single paper; (5) new information is being added to the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the body, not a place to add new material not found in the body.

Some of these issues are easy to catch and revert. For others, I may end up reading the entire source only to find out that nothing was said about what was claimed or that the source was misinterpreted, such as here: [13].

These inappropriate edits are ongoing. I just reverted this recent addition to the lead: [14]. This is typical of the recent edits. 90% of the edit has to be reverted, but you have to wade through the 90% to find the 10% that should remain in the article.

CatPath ^{meow at me} 00:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Introduction problems

The first sentences have some problems.

A minor gripe; ABA is not a "scientific technique" any more than biology or chemistry are. ABA is a scientific discipline, the techniques are within it (e.g., DRO, desensitization, extinction, shaping, etc.).

It looks odd to me to refer to the other two forms as "radical behaviorism" and EAB. In the Wikipedia entry for Radical behaviorism I do see a quote referring to radical behaviorism as Skinner's philosophy, so I guess this is where it is coming from, but in reality, practitioners of ABA and EAB are also "radicals" in that we are not methodological behaviorists (like Watson). Instead, it would be more accurate to refer to simply the 3 branches of "radical behaviorism"; the philosophy of behaviorism, ABA, and EAB, or even add a 4th: the practice of radical behaviorism, Cooper, Heron, and Heward would be a sufficient reference for this as well. (I also would skeptical you could extract support based on that reference (#3) that was given, but ill look again.)

69.132.49.55 (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)