Comparative Effects of Applied Behavior Analysis on Male and Female Individuals With Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Introduction Current evidence-based treatments for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are based on applied behavior analysis (ABA). However, research on gender differences in ABA therapy response is limited. This study seeks to (1) confirm the 4:1 male-to-female ratio reported in the literature and (2) identify any possible gender differences in target behaviors over seven timepoints measured every two weeks. Materials and methods  For three months, from March 19, 2023, to June 11, 2023, a team of 3-5 behavioral technicians per individual collected daily data on general target mastery for 100 individuals with ASD treated with ABA. Data was collected at seven timepoints every two weeks. Descriptive demographics were computed. Two independent sample t-tests were performed to determine significant or nonsignificant gender differences with the seven timepoint variables.  Results Nonstatistically significant gender differences (p > .05) were found on all seven cumulative target behavior timepoints measured at two-week intervals. For targets mastered Time 1, baseline between males and females, there was no significant difference in the means for males (M = 1.0571, SD = 1.9196) and females (M = 2.0455, SD = 3.9457) (t(90) = -1.591, p = 0.115, confidence interval (CI) = -2.2223, 0.2456, d = -0.389). For targets mastered Time 2, two weeks between males and females, there was no significant difference in the means for males (M = 3.7132; SD = 4.5065) and females (M = 4.0682, SD = 5.1508) (t(88) = -0.310, p = 0.757, CI = -2.6305, 1.92056, d = -0.076). For targets mastered Time 3, four weeks between males and females, there was no significant difference in the means for males (M = 7.0956; SD = 8.7781) and females (M = 8.6136; SD = 11.2799) (t(88) = -0.656, p = 0.514, CI = -6.1173, 3.0811, d = -0.161). For targets mastered Time 4, six weeks between males and females, there was no significant difference in the means for males (M = 13.1728, SD = 16.2003) and females (M = 13.0682, SD = 16.9272) (t(88) = 0.026, p = 0.979, CI = -7.8779, 8.0871, d = 0.006). For targets mastered Time 5, eight weeks between males and females, there was no significant difference in the means for males (M = 17.2096; SD = 18.8546) and females (M = 17.4286, SD = 22.1683) (t(87) = -0.045, p = 0.965, CI = -9.9773, 9.5393, d = -0.011). For targets mastered Time 6, 10 weeks between males and females, there was no significant difference in the means for males (M = 21.0074, SD = 21.3329) and females (M = 20.6818, SD = 26.1231) (t(88) = 0.059, p = 0.953, CI = -10.6752, 11.3262, d = 0.014). For targets mastered Time 7, 12 weeks between males and females, there was no significant difference in the means for males (M = 26.1196, SD = 24.2235) and females (M = 29.6364, SD = 33.7406) (t(89) = -0.536, p = 0.593, CI = -16.5431, 9.5094, d = -0.131). Conclusions The study indicates that ABA treatments may be equally beneficial for both genders with ASD, showing no significant gender differences. However, the broad CIs in this study imply a level of statistical uncertainty, indicating potential gender differences, suggesting the results may not be uniform across genders. These findings challenge assumptions on gender-specific treatment responses, implying that ABA treatments shouldn't be recommended based on gender. Instead, individual needs should guide treatment recommendations. Future research could consider other response moderators like age, ASD severity, or coexisting mental health conditions.