Talk:Applied behavior analysis: Difference between revisions

In 2020, the FDA banned the use of electrical stimulation devices... but a circuit court overturned this

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/dc-circuit-overturns-fda-ban-shock-device-disabled-students-2021-07-06/#:~:text=A%20federal%20appeals%20court%20has,school%20for%20the%20developmentally%20disabled.

Just mentionin this if anyone else wants to properly update it; i dont have the time and also wanna make sure it gets done right rather than just done fast Shardok (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've updated the section on the use of ABA in autism to bring it up to date on the legal use and promotion of torture in the USA, in the context of ABA. Oolong (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Reuters is not a valid source. Unless anyone is able to provide a valid resource to refute this otherwise, the FDA banned the use of electric shocks in 2020 (as disclosed in The New York Times; see here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/06/us/electric-shock-fda-ban.html), and the Judge Rotenberg Center is no longer allowed to use them. ATC ^{. Talk} 22:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is Reuter's not a valid source? It's one of the world's major news agencies, with reports from it often being syndicated to other major and minor news outlets, and consensus at WP:RSP and WP:RSN is that it is generally reliable. This overturn was also reported by NBC, NY Times, and CNN to name another few reliable sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Horrific Bias in Introduction

The introduction to this article is essentially a mish mash of quotes from non academic sources that have an ideological opposition to ABA. Further, they are all overwhelmingly critical opinion articles. It does not give an accurate overview of the topic at all as a result, instead it gives the anti ABA take in extreme, partially building it as a strawman (focus on negative reinforcement like electro shocks which is a holistically rare approach that only happened in American backwaters) to mischaracterize it as torturing ASD people to make them behave which is really not true 203.40.87.19 (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I have to keep reverting edits due to WP:POV, and I might need to contact an administrator to get this article locked. ATC ^{. Talk} 22:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on this, perhaps? Nearly all of the points being made are backed up by peer-reviewed research, and I'm not seeing any quotes in the current version of the introduction. I can see the case for removing the section on electric torture machines, even though these are actively supported by one of the major professional organisations for ABA practitioners and evidently permitted by the BACB's code of ethics; but the grave concerns about undisclosed conflicts of interest, systematic failure to investigate harm, lack of autism training for practitioners who overwhelmingly work with autistic people, and the overall weakness of the evidence base are surely key information for people to be aware of? Oolong (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Important news: Association for Behavior Analysis International has recently voted to STOP approving of the use of electric torture machines on vulnerable children! Presumably this professional body will no longer be inviting representatives of the JRC to advocate for the use of electric shocks at their conferences. This should probably be reflected in the article somewhere.[1] Oolong (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Whoever tagged the intro with "weasel words" and "who?" is pretty biased if you ask me. It is stated in the sentence who is criticizing ABA and gives a reference. There are plenty of other examples of criticism too, so I suggest the bias has in fact been reversed. I bet if I remove the tags someone with a vested interest will just put them back. WP has overwhelmingly a pro-industry bias.--Sanjam da prdnem na tebe (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, people keep swooping in to ensure that the article maintains a systematically pro-ABA bias. Removing extremely salient and well-referenced information, usually providing little or nothing by way of rationale for doing so.

It would be interesting to know how many of the editors involved are in the ABA business. Oolong (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I kept trying to describe accounts and concerns regarding possible/uncertain risks of promoting camouflaging - then someone kept removing that part. My claims are well-supported by several peer-reviewed articles. I am *not* against ABA, and I am OK/open towards NDBI (a type of ABA broadly defined - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-021-05316-x). But it is sad that many practitioners within ABA industry, other professionals, and many parents aren't familiar with the rapidly growing camouflaging-mental health literature... Adding such information is important. 42.2.235.119 (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's deeply irresponsible to practise ABA without a good understanding of the nature and dangers of masking. This, again, sounds like someone is deliberately removing salient and well-referenced information because they are invested in downplaying the negatives of this approach. Oolong (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 May 2022 and 6 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kbaird17 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Arleenicolee, BrookeCarr01, Hannaheb2016.

— Assignment last updated by Zuleidaguirre (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Biased much?

Incredibly biased against ABA. No article should highlight the level of controversy surrounding a concept before it has even objectively outlined and defined the details of the concept. Is there controversy? Place that under the header of controversy. Social agenda is not an acceptable lens through which to define any concept and discredits the information from being in any way credible or even useful. This needs a major overhaul. 2603:7081:2901:BE00:21A5:5DB2:B0DF:E890 (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree; in fact, I would argue that the article as it stands, as a whole, still very much plays down the controversy. See Wikipedia:Controversial articles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for guidance on dealing with controversial topics on Wikipedia. You might also like to refer to how Wikipedia covers conversion therapy, which as you are probably aware, shares much of ABA's history and methodology, and some of its goals. Miracle Mineral Supplement is another useful point of reference.

We're talking here about a practice where fewer than one person in five who's been through it endorse it;[2] where every major organisation run by and for the population it's supposed to help is opposed to it;[3] where the evidence base is weak[7][8][9], riddled with undisclosed conflicts of interest[10][11], and has systematically failed to investigate harms[12], for which there is nevertheless significant evidence[13][14].

A paper published in Advances in Autism in 2021 identified five major themes in recipients' experience: "(1) ‘Behaviourist methods create painful lived experience’, which explores the methods and impact of early experiences of behaviourist approaches; (2) ‘Erosion of true actualizing self’ which recognises the gaslighting impact of ones developing self; (3) ‘Lack of self-agency within interpersonal exchanges’ which recognises longer-term impact living with experience; (4) ‘Self-healing and compassion’ which recognises the journey of recovery; and (5) ‘Hear my angry voice’ which explores activist message"[15]

I agree that this article needs a major overhaul. It is nowhere close to accurately representing how strongly opposed ABA is by the people it's supposed to help, the lack of quality evidence to support its use, or the harm people who've been through it say they have suffered.

It's going to be challenging to reach a consensus on this, obviously. Oolong (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

NPOV concerns in lead

Starting this discussion in relation to the content removed in this edit. IPv6 editor, if you could please explain why you think the version you are reverting away from, as supported by both Oolong and myself is not compliant with NPOV, thanks.

As for my view, I believe the longer version of the text more accurately and neutrally describes the significant controversy surrounding ABA within the autistic community. While this may be disputed by APA practitioners and their supporters, on balance I believe the sourcing is stronger with regards to the scope of the controversy and why it is objected to by the autistic community in the longer version of the text. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It is my view that while there is heavy controversy regarding the use of ABA in the autistic community, Wikipedia should not gear articles towards the perspectives of certain audiences, even if the subject of the article is relevant to them. It is perfectly acceptable and in fact I encourage detailed discussions of ASD perspectives on why ABA is controversial in the section related to perspectives of the autistic community, but I am concerned that putting the long version in the lead as it stands would be incredibly prejudicial to the average Wikipedia user, who it could be assumed would be neurotypical and therefore not familiar with the experiences of someone with ASD. I am autistic myself, and I feel it would be more apt to reserve autistic perspectives of the controversy to the already detailed section in the article. I also must note that I have seen User:Oolong accuse other users who have disagreed with their edits of having stakes in the ABA industry, which I feel is particularly uncalled for and unhelpful. Again, I am not at all opposed to this information being included in relevant sections of the article, but I believe the shorter version clearly states the controversy surrounding ABA without having any prejudicial slant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3330:9b60:194c:32c6:9a02:ae36 (talk • contribs)

Note that WP:NPOV states:

Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.

If you believe the content simply belongs in another section, then please move it to that section. Additionally, please sign your talk page comments in the future. Dovepaste (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The thing is is that information in the “long version” of the intro is already in the sections I cited. Specifically the perspectives of the ASD community and why they find ABA controversial. Much of that has already been added, so I feel that the coverage has already been adequate, and did not need a possibly prejudicial lead. I was alluding to the idea that if there is any more info about the controversy from the ASD perspective that any user may want to add, to add it to those detailed section and not turn the lead into a laundry list. I believe the short version in the present version of the article is more than adequate as it stands. Also please excuse my issues with formatting, I am accessing the site on mobile and am having some difficulties.2600:1700:3330:9b60:194c:32c6:9a02:ae36 (talk 23:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

As Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section specifically states, the lead "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." My goal here is to adequately summarise prominent controversies, nothing more. The shorter version does not do that. It is good and correct that any controversies are described in more depth within the article; if they were not, that would be a valid criticism (the correct response would be to add that detail within the body). Oolong (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The short version does it just fine, I fail to see how it would be inadequate for the average reader. For instance, the short version mentions the use of aversives. You are not tasked with “summarizing” controversies. That is not what the guideline says. Even the Wikipedia pafe for Conversion Therapy, which you have compared ABA to, does not go into detail in laying out the controversies surrounding it other than mentioning it in a few sentences. It mentions that there are controversies around it, and then has sections in the article that go into these controversies at length. You yourself admit that these controversies are already extensively detailed in the article, so I fail to see the need for a lead that is excessive and possibly prejudicial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3330:9B60:0:0:0:5DC (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I would add that it is not just within the autistic community that ABA is controversial; this is important. There have been a substantial number of peer-reviewed papers strongly suggesting that it lacks efficacy and generalisation, pointing out the lack of evidence for its use in non-speaking populations and the generally low quality of evidence for its use at all, and so on. There is substantial controversy among parents and family members, as well as researchers, only some of whom are autistic themselves. The citations I added reflect this.

Indeed, within the autistic community, it's hardly controversial at all; as far as anyone can tell, the autistic population is overwhelmingly opposed to its use. Oolong (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Full disclosure I have had to sign into my account after formatting issues flagged my unsigned account. But to address your point, the peer-reviewed sources you have cited are still disputed by other articles as posted in the article, and while family members may also care about this issue, that is still not a sizable demographic for it to be considered typical for the average Wikipedia reader. These are all rhetorical points and have little to do with the formatting of the article. There are also few sources that cite this demographic, as the vast majority of sources in the article cite “the autistic community,” and no other demographic. I must also object to your generalization of the attitudes of autistic people towards ABA. It is clear through your edit and talk page history that you are against it, which is valid, but that should have no bearing over what one feels should be in the lead of an article. There are already sources that state in the body that ABA is considered controversial by the community, which is mentioned via summary in the lead. I am also autistic, but I am far more concerned with the presentation of the article then any personal issues with ABA. Again, you are free to add at length the issues that you feel have been found with ABA, but the subject right now is if such a deluge of information belongs in the lead and in my opinion it is better reserved for the body. Barbarbarty (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not just autistic people and family members concerned about it - many non-autistic scientists and practitioners are deeply concerned too. A whole series of peer-reviewed studies have cast serious doubt on its evidence base and ethics. If you think these have been persuasively contradicted anywhere, I would be interested to see it.

I note your concerns about "generalization of the attitudes of autistic people towards ABA", but the largest up-to-date survey to look at this found that 88% of 6,576 autistic respondents disagreed with the statement "I support the use of ABA for autistic children" - most of them strongly. Less than 4% - 1 in 25 - agreed.[4] Again, that is overwhelming opposition.

Elsewhere in the lead we read that "ABA has also been utilized in a range of other areas, including applied animal behavior, schoolwide positive behavior support, classroom instruction, structured and naturalistic early behavioral interventions for autism, pediatric feeding therapy, rehabilitation of brain injury, dementia, fitness training, counseling, substance abuse, phobias, tics, and organizational behavior management."

If there's space for all of that, there's space to give an outline of the nature of the controversy, which is all I have ever done. In fact, I would suggest that none of that is anywhere close to the nature of the controversies in terms of importance. Again, Wikipedia guidelines specifically say the lead should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". This version falls way short of doing that: "ABA is considered controversial by some within the autism rights movement due to a perception that it emphasizes normality instead of acceptance, and a history of the use of aversives, such as electric shocks." Oolong (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I have seen little evidence that “many” practitioners have raised concerns or are speaking out against ABA, and no, a smattering of articles does not mean that there is a serious movement against ABA outside the autistic community. If there have been prominent neurotypical neuroscientists or psychologists, preferably those that Wikipedia have named notable, that have spoken out against ABA, those would be incredibly useful to include in this article, but I have not seen such a body of sources pertaining to this area in particular. I again must note, the survey you are citing was done by a blog that is not seen as an authoritative source by Wikipedia, and it states itself it is not a scientific study and has not undergone rigorous peer-review that is expected from quality journals. I have seen the articles that bring up concerns about ABA, but the lack of any mainstream controversy outside the autistic community would not merit having an overly prejudiced lead especially when most mainstream sources still consider ABA a valid method of treatment for many disorders, even outside of ASD. I fail to see how it would be detrimental to simply put all of this information in a dedicated section to controversies and autistic perspectives, which is present in the article already. I see no reason this section cannot be expanded if you feel that discussion of ABA controversies is not already sufficient. Barbarbarty (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm puzzled that you seem to be denying there is serious controversy outside of the autistic community. Here are just a few articles about it. They're not hard to find. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

I've already linked to some peer-reviewed journal articles by non-autistic researchers (not that we should take autistic researchers any less seriously, but we're focusing here on evidence that the controversy is not just among autistic people).

ABA is a controversial practice. It's controversial in various spheres, and overwhelmingly unpopular in autistic communities. These are statements of fact.

The introduction should not downplay these realities. Neither should it minimise the bases for the controversy, as the current wording does; we're talking about a practice that is seen by many as unethical and lacking in efficacy. Oolong (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, most of your sources are talking about outcry from “adults with autism” who are active in the autism rights movement. This is a small subset of autistic individuals as most autistic individuals, such as myself, are no involved in active autistic rights activism. Your more recent sources talk about private equity corps being involved in providing ABA therapy, which does not have direct standing with the methods and techniques of the therapy itself. Again if you feel this merits mention, there is a lengthy section if the article dedicated to ABA controversies where this can be mentioned. I fail to see how the lead “downplays” anything, as it clearly and flatly mentions that ABA is controversial among a number of autistic individuals. There is also a very clear dispute among whether it is inefficient, as seen in one of your articles you just posted which links to a post by the Autism Science Foundation which supports the use of ABA. I know in the past you have compared ABA to Conversion Therapy, but the truth is that there is still heavy dispute over ABA unlike conversion therapy, so to create an impression in the lead that ABA is some abusive and discredited system when it is still the de facto form of autism therapy in many developed countries throughout the world would be malpractice. I have never disputed that non-autistic researchers have documented concerns about ABA, but there is still no mass movement outside of adults with autism against ABA that can be seen as notable. On top of that, my issue has never been that such information should not be included in the article, but that it should not have extensive negative text in the lead for a topic that is still much in reputed use throughout the world. There is already discussion about ABA controversy in the lead that does not “downplay” any controversy, and I see no reason that any issues you have with it cannot simply be added to the relevant section of the article.

Barbarbarty (talk) 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe a compromise could be that you can add a list of notable controversies to the sentence at the end of the lead that begins with “[ABA] is considered controversial by many in the autistic rights movement” in the same way that the “use of aversives” is already mentioned. However I believe that that would be sufficient enough and extensive discussion of the controversies in detail should be reserved for the relevant section pertaining to its use in autism therapy. The lead should not be used for in-depth discussion of these controversies as they, for the time being, are largely limited to discussions among those privy to autism rights advocates, but I see room for mentioning them concisely in reference to why it is controversial among those advocates, as the last sentence in the lead is describing. However I feel the intro as it stands can also continue to be seen as adequate, and the rest of the intro not pertaining to autism should stay as it is valid information on the subject of ABA. Barbarbarty (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

One more thing in the sense that your subjective “sense” that other uses for ABA are not near in importance to merit mention does not seem relevant; if we are looking for a general overview, these uses merit mention just as much as the uses in therapy for ASD. There has also not been a compelling case for why the short version is inadequate, as it mentions that it is controversial to some and lists a few key reasons. There is no need for the lead to have a deluge of information when there are detailed descriptions of these controversies in the body. Barbarbarty (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe it is worth noting that User:Oolong appears as, or very nearly as, a WP:SPA. Independent of the content quality, their neutrality seems questionable. Dovepaste (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me? I've had an account here for more than seventeen years, and I've made edits to hundreds of articles on a wide variety of topics, perhaps predominantly in science. I have focused on autism entries in recent months because this is a major area expertise for me, and because Wikipedia's autism content needs a lot of work to bring it up to scratch. I am concerned about good science and human rights; if that violates your conception of neutrality, then okay, we have a problem. Oolong (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)