Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40919356›Full record

ReviewPerspectives on behavior science2025

A Tactful Prompt: The Time is Right for

David Jackson-Perry, Elsa Suckle, Nick Chown, Jonathan Tarbox

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Perspectives on behavior science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

David Jackson-PerryQueen's University, Belfast, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5889-1553
Elsa SuckleBath Spa University, Bath, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1508-9306
Nick ChownIndependent Scholar, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6368-3249
Jonathan TarboxUniversity of Southern California and FirstSteps for Kids, Los Angeles, CA USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8931-4492

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Feelings have long run high between many autistic advocates and behavior analysts. The former often experience and perceive ABA as harmful and traumatic in its methods, and prejudicial and stigmatizing in its objectives, with some of the latter retorting that criticisms reflect misunderstandings of the science rather than areas of true concern. The result? A deep and contentious conceptual divide, leaving little room for dialogue or progress. Recent months, though, have seen a tentative shift. Alongside recognition that behavioral interventions are so deeply entrenched that they are here to stay, some critical autism scholars are gingerly initiating public conversations with behavioral practitioners in a spirit of taking a pragmatic approach to meaningful reform. Further, a new generation of behavior analysts-including some autistic practitioners-is emerging, recognizing problems in their field, and considering how to address them. Interest in such developments is spreading and signals an opportunity for behavior analysts to follow other academic and advocate communities that recognize the importance of interdisciplinarity and critical self-reflection to evolve as a field. We-an interdisciplinary team of critical autism, neurodiversity, and behavior analysis scholars-feel that formalizing a broad field for scholars and practitioners sharing these ambitions holds potential. This field-let's call it

Indexed as

Applied behavior analysisCritical Autism StudiesCritical behavioral studiesNeurodiversityPositive behavior support

Identifiers

PMID40919356
PMCPMC12411382

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.