ArticlePerspectives on behavior science2025
In Defense of Applied Behavior Analysis and Evidence-Based Practice.
Article 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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Views of Autistic Adults on Early Autism Interventions: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Literature Review.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2026Pooled it
- On Terms: Is There a Problem With "Problem Behavior"? A Bibliometric Prevalence Analysis.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
- The ethical impact of Spock receiving ABA therapy.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This commentary critically appraises attacks on applied behavior analysis (ABA) from outside and-increasingly-within the field. Commonly repeated attacks are that ABA is coercive and suppresses individual identity, aligns with the medical model, causes trauma, and, in more extreme cases, constitutes abuse. We illustrate how these claims are based on unfounded criticism and longstanding myths about ABA and stand in direct contrast to the empirical foundations of behavior analysis. We also highlight how such criticism conflicts with over half a century of evidence that ABA supports autonomy and enhances wellbeing of people with autism and developmental disabilities. We call for self-reflection among well-meaning behavior analysts who repeat such criticisms and greater attention to evidence-based practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.