Talk:Applied behavior analysis

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)

ABA is, in fact, controversial

In a recent reversion of an edit I'd made to reflect the fact that ABA is controversial, not just 'considered controversial within the autistic rights movement, Barbarbarty asserted "It has been widely established that there are no “weasel words,” and that the evidence of controversy outside of the austism rights movement is scant. This was already decided upon last year."

This is false, and it certainly was not "decided upon last year" in the Wikipedia sense of reaching something resembling a consensus.

Here is a selection of articles on the controversy from the last few years, found through a quick Google News search, none of which back up the claim that ABA is only controversial in "the autism rights movement" - a claim for which no evidence has ever been supplied, to the best of my recollection:

• https://childmind.org/article/controversy-around-applied-behavior-analysis/
• https://www.dutchnews.nl/2023/05/parents-call-for-action-on-controversial-autism-therapy-aba/
• https://nursingclio.org/2022/05/05/the-applied-behavior-analysis-controversy-normalizing-or-cruel/
• https://nltimes.nl/2023/05/25/parents-want-ban-controversial-autism-treatment-children
• https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/08/aba-autism-controversy/495272/

For good measure, here is a paper I previously linked, from defenders of ABA, which acknowledges unambiguously that "controversy and division remain among researchers, clinicians, and within the autism community."

• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40474-021-00237-x

Oolong (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

You clearly seem to be mischaracterizing what was decided upon last year. Multiple editors stated the belief that the language of the lead was sufficient. Merely because you feel that the language does not match the passion you have for this topic does not mean that the language is somehow in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. You have provided no evidence of widespread, notable controversy outside the autism rights movement, and vague references to a few parties outside the autistic community in scattered articles does not count as notable controversy in neurotypical circles in any respect whatsoever. As for your articles, two of them mention a single incident in the Netherlands, and none of them show any consistent controversy outside of circles strongly connected to either autistic individuals or autism advocacy groups. It is a strange definition to claim that the autism rights movement does not include parents of autistic individuals who advocate for their children as well. Even then, none of your articles show any notable controversy outside of groups intrinsically linked to autistic individuals.

Some of your past edits to this article have even included links to blogposts, which are definitely not authoritative sources that would belong here, and to that extent would not justify completely reframing what is put in the lead. If you want to change significant parts of the lead, you should seek consensus, which I may add you have not accomplished a single time to my knowledge. And if you specifically Googled controversy surrounding ABA and you cannot get even five articles without linking an article published nearly a decade ago, it is simply not convincing that there is notable controversy “outside the autism rights movement.” You seem to be conflating “autistic individuals” with the “autism rights movement,” when many autistic individuals do not consider themselves autism rights advocates or have strong opinions on ABA, and some neurotypical people fancy themselves members of the autism rights movement, in the same way other progressive movements had members of outgroups lend support. Nothing you have provided would make the language you have issue with categorically wrong.

You made these same points last year and, just like now, they remained wholly unconvincing to many people who contributed to those discussions. One thing that was agreed upon was that any major rewrites of the lead should achieve consensus. Once you achieve that, feel free to change it to what was agreed upon. Until then, however, relitigating these discussions will get us nowhere. Barbarbarty (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

You are mis-characterising last year's discussions yourself, which were lengthy but largely inconclusive, as well as the contents of these articles (here's another one while I'm here).

You have still produced not a single source which backs up the claim that ABA is only controversial in the "autism rights movement", or that the controversy is limited to "a perception that it emphasizes normalization instead of acceptance, and a history of, in some forms of ABA and its predecessors, the use of aversives". Indeed, I see that there has backsliding in the lede without any seeking of consensus - one thing we did agree on last year was that the lede ought to mention the weak evidence base. Oolong (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Every argument you have made so far were the same arguments you brought, unconvincingly, last year. If you actually believe you can achieve a consensus to change the lede, you should do so. But if you are simply going to relitigate old complaints that were already thoroughly addressed and refuted elsewhere, then nothing productive will arise from this discourse. Your points, including those on what counts as the “autism rights movement,” are those I have already addressed, quite definitively in my view. However, I am obviously not going to convince you, so I humbly suggest you take your concerns to other users who may contribute to a consensus. So far you have shown little intention of doing so. Barbarbarty (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I stand by the assertion that this article will only be “improved” by having more eyes on it. It is clear certain parties have very passionate, but not widely accepted, views on this article and talking in circles will not go anywhere. Barbarbarty (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Barbarbarty, you are going against what the references state is the scope of the controversy. It is controversial - full stop. There are plenty of academic papers from the field of psychology that point this out. 1Veertje (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The references make it very clear that it is controversial within the autism rights movement. They absolutely do not state what you are claiming it states. Barbarbarty (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

And by “consensus” I mean consensus among editors. You cannot waive something that has been agreed upon by editors of this page simply because you have a personal disagreement. Barbarbarty (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

You are the one standing there by yourself. You have not taken on the evidence provided to you in the discussion last year. The intro as it's written now is misleading as it unjustly minimizes the scope of the controversy as something outside of the field of psychology, when there are quite clearly critics from within the field itself. Consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees. There's no convincing you, but you don't own this article. 1Veertje (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

No, many other users in the discussion other than myself raised concerns about the language you are proposing, and others as well found that the articles provided were insufficient. I am not claiming to “own” any article, I am simply asking that a consensus be reached. Nothing in this talk page discussion has approached anything close to a consensus that Wikipedia would dictate is proper. I also don’t understand where you are getting that anything is “minimizing” anything. You are free to think that conversations last year convinced you, but I do not think that anyone would agree a “consensus” was reached, despite how you may personally feel about the sources.

The article discusses at length many research articles both in favor of and critiquing ABA, if you want to expand that section you are free to do so. But modifying the lead is best left to a definitive consensus, as it would avoid conversations such as these. Barbarbarty (talk) 06:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There are review studies like the Cochrane review that are described in the article that point out that there is no significant benefit to ABA. A single paper where a single case study is discussed is not of equal weight. It shouldn't be controversial to call a treatment method controversial when the benefits haven't been substantiated and it quite commonly causing harm. 1Veertje (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It had already been widely agreed upon that any dramatic changes to the lede are to have consensus first. Arbitrarily changing more than half of the lede when there is no consensus is blatantly a violation of NPOV. Either follow Wikipedia’s guidelines or leave the article in the hands of competent editors. Barbarbarty (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You don't even want to remove the paragraph that is based on a single paper that was written by a single author who is part of a Department of Philosophy and Theology. The intro has changed to falsely represent what it is that makes it controversial: it's not only its because some use adversives, because positive reinforcements used to force neurotypical behavior are just as damaging. The intro is bad because in two places it needlessly unsubstantiated claims that there are more aspects that it is applied in. 1Veertje (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The only one who has dramatically altered the lede has been you. If you have issues with the lede, take it to this talk page and gain consensus. Simply because you have certain perspectives on what the lede should be does not give you the prerogative to dramatically alter longstanding language at your whim. Barbarbarty (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting that you had no problem with @ATC or @EJA94 (who I didn't even realize was the same person) altering the lede and deleting mainstream journalistic citations without consensus. Is there some reason you're holding them to a different standard? DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring the unusual insinuation that you are casting on me, I do not actively monitor this article, so I fail to see how I am holding anyone to a different standard. I have not edited the article in months, as evidenced by some of the users who have disagreed with me on this article in the past making extensive edits to the article since I last edited it. I don’t have any objections to raise about what they or others have added because frankly I have not paid attention to this article for a while and do not intend to do so for the immediate future. If you have issues with the current state of this article then I am not the one you should be having a dispute with at this juncture. Barbarbarty (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

That is not true. I only removed news/media articles related to the perspectives on ABA and some blogs views on it written by people high functioning on the autism spectrum as well (and I don't fully remember but I believe I might've removed some journal articles that the Wiki community agreed went against WP:POV, though that was all). And I also added valid literature reviews and the first large multi-RCT of 164 participants which successfully reproduced the Lovaas (1987) study of 45% of kids with lower receptive language skills gaining spoken language from DTT/EIBI; the Pediatrics journal and literature reviews that it's "well established"; as well as the recent research literature reviews (i.e., Cochrane) emphasizing the need for more large RCTs and pointing out the research on the different learning styles). But, randomized control trials are not the only robust form of research (especially when it's not a drug treatment) and they're all based on over 50 years of valid data collection.

But, yes more research is evolving to incorporate large multi-site RCTs (which is good for showing how it outperforms other less intensive services). And yes I was locked out of my User:ATC account (I need to reset the password on the computer but I'm having trouble doing so) and I use User:EJA94 to log in to Wikipedia via my mobile phone. EJA94 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• I haven't surveyed the field lately but Wikipedia needs to be careful to contextualize any controversy. Some things are "controversial" in the wider world (vaccines, climate change, the age of the Earth) but established & settled amongst relevant experts. I don't know whether ABA is controversial these days in its scientific field(s): are there recent sources that directly address this? Bon courage (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  When this was last discussed, the use of the phrase “controversial among those in the autism rights movement” was seen as a possible compromise given how some Austism rights advocates have been outspoken about what theh perceive to be the harms of this practice. But whether it is “generally” controversial is a bigger stretch, given how most articles related to ABA controversies only focus on autism rights advocates, with little or no detail on critics outside those communities. Barbarbarty (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  They focus on the controversy in its application as a treatment for autistic kids because that's practically the only group being subjected to this kind of treatment. It is controversial because of its high potency to cause harm and review studies have only shown a marginal benefit. Kids grow up, so improvements can be in spite of treatment. Citing a single paper by a philosopher who is talking about their own kid as if they're an authority on a therapy they're not even trained in themselves for an entire paragraph that claims to reflect the benefits is a disgrace. 1Veertje (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  That is all well and good, but again, this sounds more like a personal view rather than any dispute as to the content of the article. The articles in the “benefit” section can stay out pending any consensus on whether to include them, but please seek consensus, either through an RfC or other means, before dramatically altering the lede. Unilateral actions such as yours will only make a contentious article such as this even more toxic to editors. Barbarbarty (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  you should read the paragraph "Views of the autistic community" again. Does it emphasize its historic use of electroshock or, like I phrased it, its potential for harm, which is elsewhere in the article substantiated by research showing its potency to cause PTSD symptoms? 1Veertje (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  The article does mention the electric shock treatments performed by the JRT, as well as having a 2023 survey which showed a majority of autistic adults have “painful lived experiences” from treatments described as ABA. I do not think the article neglects to mention or downplay those aspects. Barbarbarty (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  The lead downplays why it is being opposed, making the harms caused by ABA out to be historic and the basis of a misunderstanding of current practices. It's not just negative reinforcement that is the cause of distress, it's the current practice of manipulating behavior with operant conditioning to extinguish signs of distress. 1Veertje (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I dispute that characterization. The lede discusses the controversies ABA has in the present tense, as well as it being perceived as causing harm. If you have other sources you would like to present, please bring them here and there can be an open discussion on how to frame the lede. Barbarbarty (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Also, it doesn’t “emphasize” electric shocks in the lede, it mentions “aversives” and in mentioning that gives the example

  of electric shocks. The article goes into detail on how the use of aversives such as those practiced by the JRC are a point of consistent criticism against practitioners of ABA. I think it is fair to state that the article presents this as a source of controversy, and I have no issue with it being described as such. Barbarbarty (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, it's not fair to make criticism of ABA out to be some sort of misunderstanding of adversives being a thing that only a historical aspect of ABA. For one: they're not. Rewarding a kid by giving it back its favorite toy is no different than taking it away until they comply. If you would read the position statement of EUCAP it also emphasizes that they published that statement last April because its current and demonstrated extent potential to cause harm. I therefore propose changing the closing paragraph of the opening to "there is substantial opposition from autism rights movement to its application due to a perception that it emphasizes normalization instead of acceptance and its potential for causing harm" 1Veertje (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Barbarbarty Are you going to change the intro or shall I? The way it's written now is quite a dishonest representation of why ABA is being opposed. 1Veertje (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  I fail to see how it is dishonest in the slightest, but again my position is that if you are seeking to dramatically change the lede you should seek consensus on here first before you make changes. That has been my consistent position throughout all of this. I don’t understand why you are asking me when it has already been established that individual editors do not “own” pages. So far, you have failed to provide a single convincing argument, in my view, that the lede is inaccurate, but if you wish to change the lede then seek consensus first. Barbarbarty (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  

  Harm caused by ABA

  As I've stated before: the lead now makes the objections from the autism rights movement against ABA because of its use of adversives, and makes those out to be something only some forms of ABA use and specifically electro shock a thing of the past. It's not accurate: it's opposed because of its potential to cause harm. The way it causes harm goes much deeper than just those times when adversives were used. ABA has also been used to suppress self soothing behavior such as stimming and to enforce neurotypical levels of eye contact. The use of positive reinforcement can also be harmful in that it can be detrimental to intrinsic motivation. See How much compliance is too much compliance: Is long-term ABA therapy abuse? (Q66742693) 1Veertje (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Again, I think you are misreading the lede, because the lede very blatantly states that there is controversy because it enforces normalization instead of acceptance. You seem to be contriving an interpretation of the lede in order to find fault with it. But regardless, my position is still that you should gain the consensus of other editors before radically altering the lede. If you have actual issues with the lede, you should seek out the opinions of other editors instead of trying to convince me when I’ve already told you I have no ultimate control over the direction of the article. Barbarbarty (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for trying, 1Veertje. I see that the lead, at least, has now pretty much been reverted wholesale to the state it was in before I started trying to make it accurate.

  It's glaringly unencyclopaedic as it stands, and we obviously need another dispute resolution here, since my previous attempt stalled and the same people are still digging their heels in with the same spurious arguments. I just don't have the energy to pursue this right now, but will support anyone who does. Oolong (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  This source:

  • Callahan MM, Fodstad JC, Moore JW (2023). "History of Applied Behavior Analysis". In Matson JL (ed.). Handbook of Applied Behavior Analysis. Autism and Child Psychopathology Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-19964-6_1.

  says that the idea this is an autism-specific treatment is a misconception. It is also useful for the question at hand: maybe "controversial" is just too reductive a word. While Lovaas' work is described as controverial, the field as a whole is characterized as one which is subject to criticism for overreaching claims. Bon courage (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  "there is substantial opposition from autism rights movement to its application due to a perception that it emphasizes normalization instead of acceptance and its potential for causing harm." 1Veertje (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have appealed to to WikiProject Psychology for help here, for what it's worth. Oolong (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Bon courage, what do you think about trying something like "rejected by the autism rights movement"? I suspect we could find sources that support this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  From what I've seen of the sourcing that seems about right, yes. Bon courage (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  If nobody objects during the next day, then let's make that change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  There being no objections, I have re-written that paragraph. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 17 October 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)

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)