ReviewBehavior analysis in practice2026
Listening with Humility:Lessons Learned from a Dialogue with Scholars from Critical Autism Studies.
Review in Behavior analysis in practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The field of applied behavior analysis (ABA) appears to be at an inflection point where we are experiencing substantial criticism from the autistic community. We as a field can choose to defend our field from the criticism or we can choose to listen and be responsive to it. Some early forays into discussing the implications of neurodiversity for ABA have been fruitful (Veneziano & Shea, 2023; Mathur et al., 2024) and it seems clear that the time for direct dialogue between ABA scientist practitioners and some of our greatest critics has come. Suckle et al. (2025) described one side of a recent dialogue between scholars of ABA and Critical Autism Studies (CAS), in which CAS scholars posed questions to ABA scholars and ABA scholars answered them. That article was explicitly composed for a disability studies audience and accordingly published in a disability studies journal. The current article describes the other side of that dialogue, in which ABA scholars posed questions to CAS scholars, who then provided their answers. The current article is explicitly written for the ABA researcher and practitioner audience. We may not feel entirely comfortable with some of the criticisms of ABA that come from CAS scholars but we believe that willingness to experience this discomfort is a critical prerequisite for our field to evolve. This article explores how our field can engage in cross-disciplinary collaboration and concludes with potential actionable steps that ABA researchers and practitioners can put into practice today.
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.