Talk:Applied behavior analysis

WP:TALK

To anon editor responsible for these edits, please read WP:TALK before making further, similar changes. It is important that you do not edit others comments. This will allow future users to follow the discussion more easily.

Thanks,

WLU 18:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

ABA weaknesses

There is no mention in this section of studies which show ABA's significant weakness in the areas of social/emotional development, perspective taking and executive functioning. Furthermore, there is no mention of ABA's past, and how, even into the 1970s, negative reinforces which included slapping children, were used to deter "maladaptive behaviors".

It is an unfortunately past that used aversive controls, but this is not the field as a whole, but parts of the field (there is no unified "ABA" organization, but rather many practitioners. Opposition to all of biology because of the actions of /some/ biologists, or to all of physics because of /some/ physicists would seem similarly (I hope) odd. I plan to add some of the aversive studies you mention (I've come across some in JEAB/JABA) in a few weeks when I am less busy. --florkle 05:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a few questions in regards to the author of the text on Applied Behavior Analysis. First of all, I was pleased to see that there was at least something pertaining to this method of teaching in this encyclopedia, especially because it is not well known. What was it that made you interested in adding a piece about Applied Behavior Analysis? Do you work with this method of teaching, or with children with autism? I would be interested to know what drove you to have an interest in Applied Behavior Analysis.

Autistic Perspective I'd like to see at least a mention of the movement against ABA but am too lazy to add it.

What appears below is an abridged quote from my autobiography at [1]. Lindsay Weekes, diagnosed as autistic in 1970.

"Some people thought to use me to connect with and cure their children. They missed the most fundamental point, or refused to entertain it if it was brought to their attention. They took refuge in "programs" such as ABA or Son Rise.

Because I was asked by so many people about ABA, I thought to understand it from the inside and so became a qualified ABA therapist". In the mid to late 1990s, Tim was my town's ABA pinup boy, the one who appeared in so many promotional and training videos, and I had the opportunity to work with him exclusively and extensively. I'd first met him in early intervention where he was regarded as low-functioning; he did not respond to others and had no language. It was an illusion: he was hyperlexic and at home could, and did, read aloud, although with little, if any, comprehension.

ABA taught him many things: to listen to people, to know the names of colours, to pick out and name members of his family.....or did it? Tim learned the names of coloured squares, but couldn't say what colour the sofa was. If he was told to stand up without any accompanying gesture, he sat still. If he was asked to name his mother when she was standing there in the flesh, he couldn't. He'd learned the names of all the squares, whether coloured or shaped or coloured and shaped, in much the same way as other boys might have named their toy soldiers. He even knew the names of the pictures. This one's called zebra, this one is Daddy and so on.

The fact is that Tim was quite an intelligent boy with major autism. He soon learned to get what he wanted by jumping through hoops. Correctly doing tricks made his day much easier. No-one seemed to notice, or wanted to notice, that he was relying on his prodigious memory to get by, which was why he could handle only three attributes (colour, shape and size) of any given object. No-one wanted to tell his parents that this king was naked."

---

It's legitimate to criticize any method or therapy. However, in an encyclopedia, criticism should be supported by citation of published, peer-reviewed research or analysis. Nesbit 20:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

So should advocacy, where the therapy is controversial, especially on ethical grounds.--209.86.4.233 08:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC) The above comment was left by me.--Dell Adams 08:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph in the ABA and Autism section which links it to Ethical_challenges_to_autism_treatment#Ethical_challenges_to_applied_behavior_analysis at the very least that helps to add some neutrality by taking into account the fact that the therapy and its use for Autism treatment is disputed on ethecal grounds, I also cited CIBRA as the organisations web site contains links to several published articles documenting some cases which give rise to the concerns meantioned. I hope the addition is up to scratch however I did feel for the article to be neutral there has to be some reference to the debatable ethics used in parts of the feild as ethics are of significant importance to therapy. MttJocy 14:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Definition of ABA

"The State of Florida, where ABA is widely used" - this statement is not supported. "ABA", or teaching based on behavior analytic principles, is used in many parts of the USA and the rest of the world. It may be more prevalent close to universities where ABA is taught. Rsaffran 18:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible confusions?

"It is also suggested that ABA and discrete trials are less effective for improving language than 'naturalized' teaching. Naturalized teaching mimics the use of language in the natural environment, focusing on manding (requesting) tacting (labeling) receptive language (physical manipulation based on commands or requests) and the other functions of language[9]."

There seems to be some confusions on this page. Applied Behavior Analysis may be widely used to refer specifically to teaching children with autism or other developmental disabilities, but it is a field of study, not a technique.

Also, the quote above regarding ABA versus naturalized teaching doesn't make sense. Manding and tacting for example, come straight out of Skinner's Verbal Behavior -- this is definitely behavior analysis.

Terms are confusing, but it seems that this page should be cleaned up to reflect a more technical understanding... Milktoast 08:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Manding and tacting are the terminology, which is from skinner, but they are used anywhere language is taught. I think the point the person is trying to get at is that ABA to teach phonemes (individual sounds/sylabyls, wow I don't know how to spell that word) is less useful than teaching whole words or functional equivalents. That's how naturalized versus old-school ABA a la skinner was explained to me. WLU 12:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to Behavioural modification pointing here. Hope it livens up the discussion Dnavarro

I think you mean Behavior modification. See also links are better integrated into the body of the text also. WLU 19:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think understamnding of ABA is limited and outdated. Children are, generally, taught to mimic verbal speach with words broken down into individual sounds if necessary, in order to make it possible to prompt and shape the word. alongside this, or as soon as it is accessible, children are taught receptive and expressive language so they know what the word means that they can say. A lot of children have natural environment teaching included in their programme if it is appropriate for them. People need to realise that ABA isn't a set thing it is adapted where necessary, each child's programme is taylor made for themselves... Okocha, Senior ABA Therapist for 6 years. 25/04/2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.224.18 (talk)

Feel free to update the page, but be sure to adhere to the five pillars, particularly the points on avoiding point of view additions, and reliable sources. Also useful is WP:NOT, particularly #4 of indiscriminate collection, not an instruction manual. Though adding content is a valuable thing, please ensure it adheres to guidelines. --WLU 11:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of "punishment"

The use of punishment in ABA therapy is highly unethical. The point is to reward and or guide proper behavior, not to punish bad behavior. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.237.243.252 (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree with the above comment. Punishment doesn't work with any child, positive reinforcement is much more effective. Punishment is fundamentaly wrong especially children who don't understand why the thing they do is inappropriate or are acting inappropriately through frustration...Okocha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.224.18 (talk)

Just my $0.03... Positive reinforcement should always be tried first. Always. If there are problem behaviors, extinction or differential reinforcement should be tried next. However, in an extremely limited set of circumstances, punishment can be useful, and sometimes even necessary. When all other recourses have been tried, or a dangerous behaviour must be corrected immediately, punishment is sometimes the only option.

"From an ethical standpoint it can be argued that since punishment can be used in a therapeutic way to suppress future occurence of maladaptive behavior, not using punishment, especially in situations where other procedures have been tried unsuccessfully, withholds a potentially effective treatment and maintains the client in a dangerous and uncomfortable state." -Cooper, Heron, Heward, Applied Behavior Analysis, page 412 (2nd hand reference). -Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archfool (talk • contribs)

Punishment does work, if it doesn't, you aren't doing it properly (a la the definition of punishment). What people are getting at here is that punishment is not the preferred option. This is not the place to debate the ethics of punishment by the way, this is the place to discuss changes to the main ABA page. If you have reliable sources saying why punishment is not the preferred option, feel free to cite them as you add to the text - you could also create a separate section that discusses punishment in greater detail. Just make sure to source it. --WLU 11:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Proven?

In the ABA and Autism section, it's mentioned that ABA is a proven method for treating autism (the only one in fact). However the 'proof' is higly controversial at best. All of the 'evidendence' cited come from journals and sites that actively advocated ABA. They are, therefore, in no way unbiased. On a more personal note I do not trust any Journal that deals with Autism as if it is a form of retardation. Robrecht 16:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The articles are all from peer-reviewed scientific journals, which are pretty much the highest standard of proof that exists. Of course they advocate for ABA, they advocate for it because it is proven. The scientific method is what attempts to remove bias from the research. If you've got any other type of treatment that has been tested empirically, and is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and has reported positive results that have been replicated, put the reference on the page and the text can be changed.

ABA is prove, it is the other methods that are controversial and biased. WLU 19:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As an autist myself and as brother to a psychologist, the most common criticism I hear of ABA is that it doesn't help children to actually 'cope' with their autism, it merely teaches them to mask it in public and in fact it only succeed in doing this through some kind of Pavlovian reaction. At best I'd say it doesn't count as a 'treatment', because it doesn't remove or even reduce the 'symptoms' of autism, it merely makes them less outwardly apparent. At worst I'm personally of the opinion that it isn't a treatment for autism, because autism isn't a disease or disorder and therefore cannot be treated. Now one might argue that I'm not an authority, but because I am an autist, I'm an expert on that subject through personal experience at least. But that's not exactly how Wikipedia works, so I won't press it. Robrecht 21:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's one thing I did want to add and that is that you're using a circular arguement here. You argue that: a. It's proven because a number of articles that advocate it say so, and, b. It's advocated by these articles, because it's proven. So I'd still like to see an unbiased source. Robrecht 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

See scientific method for why it's not tautological and is as unbiased as any method is likely to be - I'd trust the Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis far more than I'd trust Steven Gutstein or Barry Neil Kaufman opinion, or the opinion of parents involved in their programs. See ethical challenges to autism treatment and autism rights movement for other stuff - you might find something of interest there, and something closer to your own experience of things.

Built into the scientific method is the process that attempts to remove bias, which the non-controlled 'evaluations' of other treatments - it's part of the reason why many treatment programs do not invite scientific researchers to examine their programs. Controlled, unbiased methodical examination of the programs would reveal they don't actually help people.

There's more, but it'd take up more space. The fact that the proofs are in peer-reviewed scientific publications enhances their credibility irrespective of the journal titles. Journal titles captures broad interest areas, not specific approaches or viewpoints.

Anyway, if you can find statements to the contrary that meet WP:RS it can be put in, but that's going to be tricky given the standard of proof required for the article. You could also ask for a peer review of the statement, though I don't know if it would actually happen. WLU 22:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaken in regards to my intent. You seem the think my emphasis was on the word 'only', but it wasn't. I don't think there are ANY proven or viable treatments for autism. You keep referring to your skepticism of other 'treatments', but I don't know what you could possibly be trying to achieve with them if you did understand my point. My skepticism of such treatments rivals or surpasses your own, I merely include ABA in the 'treatments' I'm skeptical of. Any way, the article on scientific method you linked to states quite clearly that the study must be objective, which the advocated of the treatment obviously aren't. More over I have a problem with the way 'success' is tested in these trails, namely by administering a test before and after the 'treatment'. The problem however is that the test and 'treatment' are one and the same thing: the victi.. erhm subject is administered a test and when the answers given are not satisfactory, or even absent, the subject is put through ABA, which consist of the the same or similar questions as those in the test being posed over and over to the subject, with the answer initially given along with each question and then positive or negative reinforcement is applied based on whether the subject responds satisfactory. At the end of the 'treatment' the same test as before is administered and if the subject answers correctly this time, the 'treatment' is deemed succesfull. However the questions are drilled and the answers are Pavlovian at best. As Lindsay Weeks noted earlier on this Talk page, an ABA patient can generally only answer the questions they've been taught to answer and tend to lack the comprehension of the context BEHIND the question. All in all I view ABA less as a viable treatment and more as an effective form of brainwashing. Again I note that ABA does not in any way mediate the 'symptoms' of autism, nor does it lend the subject any understanding of how to deal with them... All it does is teach the subject tricks for the advocates of this 'treatment' to pat themselves on the back over. Robrecht 01:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

response to above: before you begin your discussion, you may want to read up on your definitions. Your reference to "negative reinforcers" is completely incorrect. Also, in behavior analysis, practioners don't try to "deter" anything. They look to increase, decrease, or maintain behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.44.137 (talk)

this means that he was lacking discrimination skills. this should have been worked on if this was the case. this is not a "result" of ABA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.44.137 (talk)

Paragraph from main article

I removed the following section:

• Accounts from previous subjects - Autistic adults who, as children, were subjected to ABA as a means of normalizing them have spoken out concerning their experiences. They describe their treatment as abusive and many are now suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. This has become a major issue within the Autism rights movement. Everything I Needed to Know about Life I Learned from my Behavioral Therapist

This will require a far better reference than the attached one. It does not meet WP:RS. Particularly note this section of the RS page. PTSD is a pretty big thing to throw around about the only validated treatment for autism, and ABA has changed since its inception - punishment is now a much smaller part of practice. WLU 13:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The PTSD of former Lovaas victims is well documented, however I do intend to add better sources, including from the blog of former victim Jerod Poore. Additionally if you go around calling ABA a "validated" "treatment" for autism you can't expect anyone to take you seriously, because you don't deserve to be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ensrifraff (talk • contribs) 09:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Please read WP:RS - a blog is not a valid source. If you have sources, add them, otherwise the information will continue to be removed. Unless Mr. Poore's accounts are documented in a reliable form, such as a scientific journal or other peer-reviewed document (such as the documents which are used to support ABA as a treatment for autism), they are ineligible for inclusion. This is an exceptional claim, and requires a very solid source. Also note WP:TALK and WP:NPA - being rude can get you blocked and it does not contribute to improving the page. If contributions are to be taken seriously, they must be sourced and neutral. WLU 19:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In this case a blog is most definitely a reliable source as it is a firsthand account from someone who was subjected to the tortures of ABA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ensrifraff (talk • contribs) 17:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

A blog, and an individuals account are not allowed as sources. See here and here. Blogs are not reliable sources, and are not allowed to justify information on the page. If you can find non-blog, secondary sources of this material, that can be included. However, this source is very POV, as is the paragraph you are attempting to include. Find a better source, and write it from a NPOV rather than reverting to the above version. WLU 18:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

ABLLS

I’d like to say three things. First, I think the ABLLS is a very valuable assessment tool and I have used it numerous times, however, it’s placement as the second paragraph on a page about Applied Behavior Analysis is inappropriate. It is designed to help guide goals and program development for successful inclusion into Kindergarten, and as such has limited utility in the field as a whole. 75.6.129.103 07:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I was an ABA therapist for almost 2 years, we used the ABBLS exclusively to determine what teaching programs to use and to establish long-term progress. I know there's other instruments used, and they could definitely be added to the page, but the ABLLS is used pretty extensively. WLU 00:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that ABLLS is a part of "applied practice" (and a part of that chunk) and not "all of ABA (theoretical, experimental & applied), which encompasses a lot of work in dozens of areas". Thus, ABLLS, which is used extensively in one particular area (applied settings with autism) is not a reasonable starting point for /the field as a whole/...? --florkle 05:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I re-read the section and I think I see your point better. I moved the ABLLS to a different part of the page. Incidentally, I also put in citation templates instead of the citations that were there, but it's a huge pain in the ass so I didn't do the entire page. WLU 18:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Shaping

Second, your shaping example is an example of physical prompting – not shaping. A better example would be one that you could take time in teaching (not one that might get the child’s hand bitten if not stopped) since pure shaping can be a time intensive process. If you would like to maintain the tooth brushing example, a better shaping scenario would be, “A child puts a toothbrush in his mouth, but does not know how to brush (i.e. how to hold or manipulate the handle of the toothbrush so that the brush part makes contact with the teeth in an up and down pattern). At first, for any way a child moves the brush in the mouth, he is praised (or reinforced in some other way such as with tokens that may be exchanged at a later point for a toy or an activity). Once the child consistently moves the toothbrush around the mouth, reinforcement for this step is faded, and a more sophisticated approximation of the final goal is reinforced, perhaps any movement in which any part of the head of the brush touches a tooth. Perhaps the next few steps would be reinforcing any time the brush touches a tooth, when the brush moves in contact with a tooth, and when the brush moves up or down in contact with a tooth, and so on until the final goal is reached.” --75.6.129.103 07:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I'll change it. WLU 00:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Language

Finally, I would like to say that I agree with the previous poster that manding and tacting are straight out of Verbal Behavior by B. F. Skinner and it is therefore incorrect to imply that these are not behavioral terms. However, I think it is a mistake to suggest that behavior analysts do not teach language in the natural environment. It is vitally important to teach in the natural environment to promote generalization by putting the student in contact with the natural reinforcers available in his or her environment. --75.6.129.103 07:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The original proceedures for teaching verbal behavior involved teaching individual phonemes and eventually linking them into words. The revolution of verbal behaviour in practice was the change from teaching from phonemes to teaching language functionally. That's where the distinction arises, but I think it is the rare situation where phoneme teaching is used now.

changes

added links to SKinner, operant conditing, jack michael. changed link from behaviorism (which is a weak page in understanding radical behaviorism) to Radical behaviorism which is better for understanding /this/ branch of philosophy/science.

Note that if the link is already on the page somewhere, it should not be in the see also section, and if possible the see also links should be embedded in the main text. I'll try to do so. WLU 00:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

okidokey --florkle 05:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)