Talk:Applied behavior analysis/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

ABA is an evidence based practice and the research shows there is different learning styles

Also, ABA is not a therapy only used for autism (it's the application of the science of behavior analysis to change behavior and to understand its' function and causes), and the verbal and physical aversives are currently outdated as well. There is also a lot of misinformation about ABA in this article.

Please take a look at these sources:

Bringell, A., Chenausky, K. V., Song, H., Zhu, J., Suo, C., & Morgan, A. T. (2018). Communication interventions for autism spectrum disorder in minimally verbal children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 11(11).

Dillenburger, K., & Keenan, M. (2009). None of the As in ABA stand for autism: Dispelling the myths. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, (1), 1-3.

Dimian, A. F., Symons, F. J., & Wolff, J. J. (2021). Delay to early intensive behavioral intervention and educational outcomes for a Medicaid-enrolled cohort of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51(4), 1054–1066.

Jobin, A. (2020). Varied treatment response in young children with autism: A relative comparison of structured and naturalistic behavioral interventions. Autism, 24(2), 338-351.

Kasari, C., Shire, S. Shih, W., Landa, R., Levato, L., & Smith, T. (2023). Spoken language outcomes in limited language preschoolers with autism and global developmental delay: RCT of early intervention approaches. Autism Research, 16(6), 1236-1246.

Keenan, M., & Dillenburger, K. (2011). When all you have is a hammer …: RCTs and hegemony in science. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(1), 1–13.

Langh, U., Perry, A., Eikeseth, S., & Bolte, S. (2021). Quality of early intensive behavioral intervention as a predictor of children's outcome. Behavior Modification, 45(6), 911-928.

Myers, S. M., & Plauché Johnson, C. (2007). Management of children with autism spectrum disorders. Pediatrics, 120, 1162-1182.

Paul, R., Campbell, D., Gilbert, K., & Tsiouri, I. (2013). Comparing spoken language treatments for minimally verbal preschoolers with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43(2), 418-431.

Roane, H., Ringdahl, J., & Falcomata, T. Clinical and organizational applications of applied behavior analysis (Practical resources for the mental health professional). Weltham, MA: Academic Press/Elsevier, 2015.

Smith, T., & Iadarola, S. (2015). Evidence base update for autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 44(6), 897-922. ATC ^{. Talk} 22:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

If you are genuinely soliciting consensus on a proposed change, you should point out what specific information is in need of correction. Your mention of the presence of misinformation is too vague to act on.

Additionally, I have reverted your last two edits for the reasons stated in the edit summaries.

Please do not make edits that are identical or substantially similar to edits you or anyone else proposed in the dispute resolution closed on March 1, 2023 without first gaining consensus on the article talk page. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Some of those sources you added back go against WP:POV and WP:SOURCES. Newsources, such as Fortune, are implying a point of view and, in general, Fortune isn't a valid resource for Wiki standards. ATC ^{. Talk} 22:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Please be more specific than "some." Regarding the Fortune article, the guidance on sources you cited states the following.

"Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

University-level textbooks

Books published by respected publishing houses

Mainstream (non-fringe) magazines, including specialty ones

Reputable newspapers"

Fortune has not been flagged by the Wikipedia community as a deprecated news source and can certainly be classified as a mainstream magazine. If you have a specific criticism of the news article, itself, which you feel justifies its removal, please bring up that specific criticism.

Also, citing a source that includes criticism of ABA does not, in and of itself, violate Wikipedia standards regarding injecting POV into an article. If it did, no Wikipedia article could include any mention of controversy or debate regarding any topic. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 03:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It appears you've once again deleted the Fortune citation without cause (merely stating a source is biased without documenting why is not cause) or talk-page consensus and you still don't appear to comprehend the definition of "controversial" (or are deliberately warping its meaning to question ABA critics' perceptions). If, rather than discuss why you believe these changes were justified, you'd prefer to take this to a formal dispute, that's fine with me. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Please stop deleting the Fortune citation and rephrasing the sentence about ABA being controversial (to make it sound like its status as a controversial subject is a matter of opinion) without talk-page consensus. MidnightAlarm (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Also Lovaas is not the founder of ABA, which this article keeps talking about. He developed discrete trial training and early intensive behavior intervention for autism. Skinner is its original founder, as are Baer, Wolf, and Risley. ATC ^{. Talk} 02:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The claim that Ivar Lovaas was not the originator of ABA seems to be an increasingly common talking point within the industry, but it is no more than that - a talking point. While Lovaas' work was heavily based on Skinner's previous attempts to manipulate the behavior of rats, pigeons and other animals using the principles of radical behaviorism, Skinner did not invent ABA. Trying to claim that other early ABA practitioners are more responsible for the creation of the industry than Lovaas was rings equally hollow. While ABA practitioners may find it inconvenient to defend or wave away Lovaas' dehumanization and abuse of both the Autistic and LGBTQIA2S+ communities, that inconvenience does not change the fact that Lovaas was the father of ABA. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 03:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Lovaas was one founding father of ABA when applied to autism (he really developed Discrete Trial Training and Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention). Skinner developed Behavior Analysis, and ABA is the application of this science outside the laboratory to a variety of situations (i.e., applied animal behavior, contingency management of substance abuse, organizational behavior management, acceptance and commitment therapy (which uses mindfulness in clinical counseling or to promote diet and exercise), habit reversal training for tics, schoolwide positive behavior support, classroom instruction for typically developing students, pediatric feeding therapy, contact desensitization for phobias, etc.). The main founders of ABA were Baer, Wolf, and Risley (Lovaas' college professors) who founded the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis at the University of Kansas in 1968. Therefore, it is most accurate to say Baer, Wolf, and Risley developed ABA. To add, some of the verbal and physical aversives Lovaas used at UCLA in the 1960s are currently outdated and it's currently against the Behavior Analyst Certification Board's guidelines to use ABA in the form of gay conversion therapy. ABA is an evidence-based practice, there is different learning styles as to which form of ABA kids with autism acquire language from, and when it comes to DTT/EIBI and clinical interventions in general, RCTs are not the only valid form of research designs. You need to design the study differently to show different variables. Your view that ABA does not teach them useful skills is POV and a number of studies (based on valid data collection) for over 50 years suggest otherwise.

You're also using a news source to suggest a view point. This Conchrane review reflecting the 2014 study at the Yale Child Study Center on the different learning styles that kids with autism respond to here: Bringell, A., Chenausky, K. V., Song, H., Zhu, J., Suo, C., & Morgan, A. T. (2018). Communication interventions for autism spectrum disorder in minimally verbal children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 11(11). As well as: Kasari, C., Shire, S. Shih, W., Landa, R., Levato, L., & Smith, T. (2023). Spoken language outcomes in limited language preschoolers with autism and global developmental delay: RCT of early intervention approaches. Autism Research, 16(6), 1236-1246. as examples, are much more credible and valid than Fortune. ATC ^{. Talk} 03:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Also most ABA autism clinics are less intensive, and are naturalistic, child-led and play-based now (and Lovaas' form of ABA is only used for nonverbal kids with lower receptive language skills). Lovaas' therapy was a lot more than teaching eye contact, and fine and gross motor skills. For example, the child could be asked to "point to something you wear", drink from a cup, imitate a single toy play action, etc. Not only did I do very well from the program when I was young (which got me to speak and respond to my name being called by the time I turned 4 and a half), I've been to an ABA autism clinic. A kid's parents told me "We tried speech therapy for many years and saw no progress and just a year of ABA at the clinic, his vocabulary exploded and he started speaking." A friend since middle school said they tried ABA with her little cousin and it didn't work nor did he do well from it. Years later, when we were in high school, she said her little cousin received it from another therapist, and he did really well from it and learned a lot. Even Temple Grandin endorses ABA (and noted that the speech therapy program she had as a young girl consisted a lot of what's seen in high quality ABA therapy program today). There is still a lot of misinformation about ABA. ATC ^{. Talk} 03:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You're inadvertently highlighting one of many major issues with ABA (and with its practitioners not having any formal training in autistic neurology). ASD is a developmental disability (not a behavioral one), meaning that autistic people often meet developmental milestones at different times than their neurotypical peers. You have absolutely no proof, for example, that that child's "vocabulary exploded" because of ABA. They might have simply not been ready to audibly speak until that point. On the same token, you may not have been ready to speak until you turned 4.5. This is the kind of thing RCTs (particularly those with large sample sizes) are helpful in ruling out.

It's also worth mentioning that ABA is very much an oralist discipline that focuses heavily on trying to force non-speaking Autistics to audibly speak (while ignoring or even discouraging alternative forms of communication, like sign language or AAC use).

As for Temple Grandin, you're correct; she's endorsed certain forms of ABA. She's also refused to explicitly state vaccines don't turn children autistic, because she claims she finds the personal anecdotes of the anti-vaxxer parents she's spoken with to be too compelling to dismiss (making her the darling of many anti-vaxxer groups, who sell books about her and point to her for validation). Despite her professional background and lived experience, Grandin is not a reliable scientific source on autistic neurology, ABA or vaccine science. It's deeply unfortunate that neurotypicals (and even many Autistic people, such as yourself) have hoisted her up as some kind of pillar of the Autistic community, when she's no more than a token who spends her time spreading misinformation. I don't consider "Temple Grandin says…" to be a valid argument in any context. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong. According to the American Speech Language-Hearing Association website, the picture exchange communication system (PECS; an AAC) is an evidence-based form of ABA, and sign language is widely used in verbal behavior and ABA programs as well. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@ATC You've had weeks to respond to requests to revert the weasel language you inserted about Autistic advocates "considering" ABA controversial and to reinsert the Fortune article citation. Thus far, your only response has been to baselessly claim that citing mainstream media sources violates Wikipedia policy. You've also blatantly ignored the guidance of the editors who oversaw the dispute filed against you by another editor roughly a year ago (namely, to seek talk-page consensus before making any such changes to the introductory paragraph). I have no choice but to now file a new formal dispute. I will notify you on your user talk page once the dispute has been opened. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Stigmatizing wording, and downplaying the absurdity of trying to "cure" or even "treat" Autism.

This article needs a complete rewrite, best done by ACTUALLY AUTISTIC PEOPLE for the love of god. Right now I'm really mad and frustrated, but I'll come back to this when I have the energy, for now, this should suffice. We will never be cured, because we were never sick in the first place. Love to fellow neurodoverse ppl and actual allies❤️♾️ Au (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I would actually try to contact the moderators to block edits from unregistered users on this article. Seems like opinionated random(?) people off the internet. Gamma1138 (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

ABA is not just used with people on the spectrum. Joyandcaring (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

ABA practitioners often claim expertise regarding a number of complex neurotypes (including the autistic and ADHD neurotypes) and complex conditions (including PTSD and depression). Perhaps you could explain how this could possibly be so when not even those with a doctorate focusing on ABA have to take a single course examining such neurotypes and conditions from a neurological or otherwise medical perspective and certainly don't have to learn anything about neurodivergent (including Autistic or ADHD) history or culture. BTW, if you had such cultural training, you would know that the majority of the Autistic population prefers the label "Autistic" to euphemisms, like "on the spectrum." DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

No, not just, but overwhelmingly. Oolong (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It needs to be reviewed and rewritten by someone with experience in this area, like a psychiatrist, pediatrician, etc. who doesn't have a conflict of interest in this area like all the study authors related to this do.

Autism spectrum disorder as listed in the DSM can be treated to reduce challenges autistic people may face in their life, such as in cases of being non-verbal, self-harming, etc. Someone not liking how an autistic person communicates isn't a medical issue that needs treatment and any psychiatrist that isn't being paid to sell a miracle cure will tell you that. 134.215.176.89 (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

ABA was never designed to cure anyone from autism. It's the application of the science of behavior analysis to understand the function of behavior and differentially reinforce new behaviors or skills. In the context of autism, Lovaas (the founder of discrete trial teaching and early intensive behavior intervention for autism) was the first to point out that ABA does not change anything on the physiological level. And ABA is an evidence-based practice for a number of conditions, including—but not limited to—autism. ATC ^{. Talk} 00:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk archives

Shouldn't there be an automatic link to the archives added at the top of the page when the talk gets archived??

I guess this is the most recent archive: Talk:Applied behavior analysis/Archive 4 Oolong (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ANTH 193 - Behavioral Science in Practice

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2024 and 13 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Soyazhebh, ZhengQiTan, AndrewOseguera, SilDill (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Dkhora (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 May 2024 and 12 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sarahmoran683 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kacart98, Zclayt, Dennyslimon10, Lmn23, Sydrgalloway.

— Assignment last updated by Rahneli (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a disgrace for Wikipedia

I've seen a lot of crap on Wikipedia, but this article looks nothing like a Wikipedia page. What gets me is the manner in which it's written. It's like a promotional material that one can read on shady blog-sites. "There is a growing body of literature regarding the proficient implementation of and adherence". Just have a look at the CBT page. That's how a proper article on psychology is written. Since when does Wikipedia publish opinions on what's "a growing body of [...] the proficient". Gamma1138 (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Genuinely bizarre. It seems as if some of the editors have a weird vested interest in promoting it 97.118.124.225 (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

They also want to remove the "controversies and criticism" section that a lot of articles have but becomes a big problem when this article and Autism Speaks has it to cover its controversies and criticisms, like the controversies and criticisms related to it being used to abuse children. 134.215.176.89 (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

It does appear unusual that some major controversies (such as the U.S. Department of Defense's OIG finding that ABA does not meet the agency's standards of proof of efficacy for medical reimbursement) are not explicitly mentioned in this article. Often, the excuse for barring such information is that not enough scholarly secondary sources have referenced the controversy. Meanwhile, ABA industry journals (many of which are ad-supported and routinely allow authors to avoid disclosing conflicts of interest) are considered scholarly sources worthy of citation. It's this veneer of credibility (and the general societal view of Autistic people as eternal children at best and subhuman at worst) that allows ABA practitioners to pass off a cruel pseudoscience designed to take advantage of panicked and desperate parents as supportive at best and "controversial" at worst. The claim that "reforms" have been implemented backed by only a single journal article written primarily by ABA practitioners (citation 24) is especially dubious, and the false "both sides" neutrality running throughout the article is insulting to survivors of ABA (and to the Autistic community more largely). DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@DoItFastDoItUrgent Extremely anecdotal, but I swear it wasn't this bad a year ago(??). In any case, atm this article severely underrepresents and trivializes the Autistic advocacy movement and its criticism of ABA... and barely references the actual (current) concerns of ASAN/etc., which are extremely well-worded (and importantly, formalized) in ASAN's white paper. Although I know there are neurodiversity-affirming and anti-ABA formal "scholarly" papers, I honestly argue that the extent of the socio-cultural movement against ABA itself, alongside the known and referenced methodological and bias issues within the field, warrant a top-level "Critisms" section. Unburnable (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@DoItFastDoItUrgent You seem to want it this article say it's abusive and pseudoscientific because of the way it was practiced 60 years ago, and your own POV about it. ATC ^{. Talk} 03:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@ATC Peddle your "ABA-has-changed" talking points elsewhere. Even the worst abuses that your industry engaged in decades ago still are practiced today (e.g., electric-shock aversive torture at the Judge Rotenberg Center), and "kinder, gentler" methods, like planned ignoring and food-based reinforcement (which are still widely practiced and taught), are deeply harmful and dehumanizing (if not as dramatically harmful and dehumanizing as electric shocks). ABA's overriding goal has always been and always will be to force Autistic people to conform to neurotypical standards, rather than attempt to understand why we act the way we do, encourage acceptance or take a genuinely supportive role. The idea that ABA can be or has been reformed is just as ridiculous as claiming that gay conversion therapists could reform their industry if they took a kinder, gentler approach. You can't fix a house built on a broken foundation. Am I biased against ABA? Yes, in the same way any reasonable person would be biased against any other abusive pseudoscience. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Unburnable I think a lot of factors are responsible for the runaway pro-ABA bias of this and related articles. One is that the Wikipedia community (especially the handful of legacy editors who have crowned themselves Lord Protectors of all articles covering controversial topics) confuse institutional support for something with scientific validity and bend over backward to bar any information or sourcing challenging that institutional support. Another is that ABA practitioners, lobbyists and other assorted promoters have abused Wikipedia's consensus-based editing model to block any substantial changes. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It also systematically downplays the degree of controversy outside of the autistic advocacy movement. That's really important - the strong implication that it's only autistic activists who see any problem with it is wildly misleading. Oolong (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/06/us/electric-shock-fda-ban.html The only form of aversives continued to be used at the Judge Rotenberg Center was the electric shocks, which the FDA officially banned in 2020. Plus, ABA is not a synonym for EIBI for autism, and the research quality of that sub-discipline belongs in the body—not the lead. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You aren't serious, right? The FDA did ban it, and the Judge Rotenberg Center successfully got the ban overturned on a legal technicality, which required an act of Congress to correct. Now that the law has been changed, the FDA needs to implement a new ban, which it has not yet done. As someone who apparently follows ABA quite closely (and I assume is employed in the field), you couldn't possibly have been unaware of that. If you were unaware of that, I'm truly speechless.

https://www.wcvb.com/article/5-investigates-judge-rotenberg-center-shock-therapy/42526127 DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I was not aware that the FDA law was overturned and that residential school still uses the aversive electric shocks. I do not personally believe in the approach, as I view it as a form of torture (in any circumstance). Regardless, one particular school that still uses electric shocks (JRC) has no relevance to this article, but it could be briefly mentioned in a section of the aversive therapy article from an encyclopedic, non-biased viewpoint, in accordance to WP:POV guidelines. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The JRC's practices are absolutely relevant to the article when ABA International, one of the main ABA bodies in the USA, persistently invited representatives from the JRC to give talks defending their practices, year after year, long after they had been denounced by the UN rapporteur and many others as torture. They finally condemned it in 2022, but this will remain relevant for a long time yet. The BACB appears to have remained silent on this issue, and that's troubling too. Oolong (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

We had a failed attempt at dispute resolution last year: [[1]]. After several of people spent hours carefully setting out stalls etc, a would-be mediator commented (without notifying anyone) that they would close the mediation request with no further action taken, if nobody replied quickly enough to two questions, arguably already covered in the original filing:

• What, in your opinion, is wrong with the article?
• What do you think should be done to improve the article?

This was following an inconclusive and frankly rather absurd discussion on the Talk page here. So it was closed with no resolution.

It was suggested that we should post in Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology to seek additional input from editors with relevant background knowledge.

Incidentally, I see that issues requiring mediation on this page go back to at least 2007. Almost as if it's objectively some kind of controversial topic, or something. Oolong (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It's particularly disturbing that the lede to the article was radically changed without consensus by one of the people involved in the prior dispute, who, like everyone else involved, was specifically told to go back to the drawing board and seek consensus. It appears they took that direction to mean, "Wait a year and go back to doing exactly what you were previously doing." It also screams bad-faith editing to me to delete the Fortune citation and defend that deletion by claiming that it's against Wikipedia standards to cite an article published by a mainstream news source. I don't think I'm being unfair when I say that the "problem" with that citation wasn't that it wasn't scholarly enough; it was that it highlighted voices critical of ABA and made the case that the practice is controversial, not merely "perceived" as such by its critics.

Additionally, there is very clearly an out-of-control COI problem here. Unfortunately, since it seems there are no editors here willing to admit they work in the ABA industry, it's very difficult to prove COI on an individual basis. While it's certainly possible to develop an interest in any topic without direct personal or financial involvement, I find it difficult to believe that the pro-ABA editors here (some of whom who have prolifically originated and edited ABA-related articles for years or even decades and fill the talk pages with random pro-ABA musings) have no formal connection to the industry.

The conflict over this article also highlights what I like to call the legacy-editor rot that a lot of articles classified as controversial suffer from on Wikipedia. Basically, a handful of longtime editors will treat a scientific or medical topic with a very poor, questionable or debatable evidence base as if "the science is settled" and fiercely guard it from critics. Any changes (even neutrally worded and robustly cited ones) are insta-reverted with either no explanation or an ever-rotating list of poor excuses as to why they violate Wikipedia standards. And, of course, in order to avoid getting in trouble for edit warring or asserting article ownership, they'll tag team with like-minded editors to make such reversions. Tolerating such behavior from editors (be they longtime editors or not) compromises Wikipedia's neutrality and selectively allows certain industries to utilize the site as a promotional tool, as has been done in this case. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. If I had the energy to do another request for mediation, I would do it.

This situation is frankly embarrassing. Oolong (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Just came across this page out of curiosity on the history of the topic and it was extremely left-field just how incredibly biased this article appears to be — right from the start, it feels like a defence, and a discrediting of evidence. This really doesn't feel like something that belongs on Wikipedia whatsoever; even if I agreed with its stance, it shouldn't have one except presenting the facts we know. Orcaaaaa (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It appears a lot of work was put in in just the past few days to substantially improve the article (including a rebuilt controversy section). Kudos to those who took the time. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

NPOV issues

This article seems to be quite biased in favor of ABA. I've tried to do a bit with the introduction but this article frankly needs re-written. LinuxNCats (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The solutions to NPOV issues is usually to increase sourcing quality by leaning on the WP:BESTSOURCES. I notice, for example there is a recent high-quality systematic review that could useful: PMID:39066520. I haven't read it yet. Bon courage (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The way the article is structured now first give us an overview of what ABA therapists set up in 1968 and then the criticism of it. This is so favorable to them that they get a bullet point of being "Effective" being an intrinsic part of the thing they thought up. They even got to add "Doable", "Empowering" and "Optimistic" with the a paper that shows their intent to do so in 2005. What they actually mean by that is that they're very preoccupied with recording meassurements. These meassurements accurately record that a 6 year old grows older. Actual clinical reviews have shown very little effectiveness and a very real chance that it causes trauma. The language ABA therapists use is also uncritically copied. What it means when they talk about "attention seeking" and "escape behavior" is that they've got a distressed child that they've thaught that they'll be punished when they show that distress. Increasing sourcing quality is really not the only problem in this article. 1Veertje (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is not really with citation quality. We have had repeated reversions of accurate and well-cited points by editors on questionable grounds. There appears to be some dispute over what counts as a reliable source for reporting on things like community views.

That said, there certainly remain many claims throughout the article which are not adequately supported by quality citations, overwhelmingly on the pro-ABA side. Oolong (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

About a third of the sources fail WP:MEDDATE. The article does have a problem with source quality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Amazingly, it's now even worse than it was when you wrote this! Oolong (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)