Is ABA Scientifically Proven?

[Guest guest]

To the professionals on these lists,

We use a lot of terms to describe ABA

Scientifically demonstrated effective,

Evidence based teaching methods

supported by research

Experimentally shown

Scientifically proven

etc.

I know that ABA is one of the only teaching or therapy methods for autism that

has any support for it. I also have heard that the number of individual

research studies supporting ABA procedures and techniques now tops 800.

But, I recently received a link to a study that tries to say that using the

terms " Scientifically Proven " for ABA is less than truthful. I was hoping some

of the other professionals on this group might read this article and offer their

opinions on it.

Specifically, Can ABA be considered Scientifically proven?

If not, what can be said about ABA research that is an appropriate description?

Journal of Developmental and Learning Disorders, 7, 19-25 (2003)

Is one style of early behavioural treatment for autism 'scientifically

proven?'

Morton Ann Gernsbacher, Ph.D.

http://psych.wisc.edu/lang/pdf/Gernsbacher_Scientifically_Proven_.pdf

________________________

Schramm, MA, BCBA

www.lulu.com/knospe-aba

www.knospe-aba.com

________________________

Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question

on Answers.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

I think that an important question to ask is " Scientifically Proven " to do

what? If someone says that ABA is scientifically proven to: Cure autism?

No. Improve IQ? No. Alleviate some of the symptoms of autism? Yes.

Alleviate all of the symptoms of autism? No.

When discussing treatment options with parents, I phrase it in this way:

ABA is not a cure. Some children are able to become indistinguishable from

their peers but many do not. However, the scientific nature of a good

program should ensure progress at your child's level because data is

collected and used on a regular basis to make decisions. If you watch a

video of " Floortime " and an ABA session in the " NET " , you would not be able

to tell the two apart. It is the data and careful analysis of the data that

sets ABA apart from other " therapies " .

I think that the next set of studies from the ABA community should focus

more on specific outcomes of the individual students instead of trying to

reach " normalcy " . How many of the kids we treat are unable to request their

wants and needs prior to intervention? How many kids are able to get

dressed independently, are potty trained, and eat with utensils? Would they

be able to do those things without ABA intervention? We have many (did you

say 800?) single subject designed studies that look at specific strategies.

Can't we expand upon them to show how beneficial ABA can be even if students

aren't " cured " ?

e

<http://www.potentialinc.org/> Where everyone can

<http://www.autismbehaviorconsut.com/> learn

e Quinby, M.Ed., BCBA

Executive Director Potential, Inc.

638 Newtown Yardley Road

<http://maps./py/maps.py?Pyt=Tmap & addr=638+Newtown+Yardley+Road & csz

=Newtown%2C+PA+18940 & country=us>

Commons West, Suite 1F

Newtown, PA 18940

kquinby@...

www.potentialinc.org <http://www.potentialinc.org/>

tel:

tel2:

fax: 888-AUTISM-0

215-579-0670

215-766-3832

<https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=8589960430 & v0=50595 & k0=1679972177> Add me

to your address book... <http://www.plaxo.com/signature> Want a signature

like this?

[ ] Is ABA " Scientifically Proven? "

To the professionals on these lists,

We use a lot of terms to describe ABA

Scientifically demonstrated effective,

Evidence based teaching methods

supported by research

Experimentally shown

Scientifically proven

etc.

I know that ABA is one of the only teaching or therapy methods for autism

that has any support for it. I also have heard that the number of individual

research studies supporting ABA procedures and techniques now tops 800.

But, I recently received a link to a study that tries to say that using the

terms " Scientifically Proven " for ABA is less than truthful. I was hoping

some of the other professionals on this group might read this article and

offer their opinions on it.

Specifically, Can ABA be considered Scientifically proven?

If not, what can be said about ABA research that is an appropriate

description?

Journal of Developmental and Learning Disorders, 7, 19-25 (2003)

Is one style of early behavioural treatment for autism 'scientifically

proven?'

Morton Ann Gernsbacher, Ph.D.

http://psych.

<http://psych.wisc.edu/lang/pdf/Gernsbacher_Scientifically_Proven_.pdf>

wisc.edu/lang/pdf/Gernsbacher_Scientifically_Proven_.pdf

________________________

Schramm, MA, BCBA

www.lulu.com/knospe-aba

www.knospe-aba.com

________________________

Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your

question on Answers.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

The problem with the article is that it makes a case against the scientific part

of all the studies that show ABA to be valid and then offers a study that

followed strict science protocol that showed no statistical significance in

almost all categories.

Is that a compelling enough argument to change the way we label ABA or is it a

narrow minded game of semantics? I do not find it compelling for several

reasons but again, I would be interested in a few other opinions, Reg, Joe,

M. etc.

________________________

Schramm, MA, BCBA

www.lulu.com/knospe-aba

www.knospe-aba.com

________________________

[ ] Is ABA " Scientifically Proven? "

To the professionals on these lists,

We use a lot of terms to describe ABA

Scientifically demonstrated effective,

Evidence based teaching methods

supported by research

Experimentally shown

Scientifically proven

etc.

I know that ABA is one of the only teaching or therapy methods for autism that

has any support for it. I also have heard that the number of individual research

studies supporting ABA procedures and techniques now tops 800.

But, I recently received a link to a study that tries to say that using the

terms " Scientifically Proven " for ABA is less than truthful. I was hoping some

of the other professionals on this group might read this article and offer their

opinions on it.

Specifically, Can ABA be considered Scientifically proven?

If not, what can be said about ABA research that is an appropriate description?

Journal of Developmental and Learning Disorders, 7, 19-25 (2003)

Is one style of early behavioural treatment for autism 'scientifically

proven?'

Morton Ann Gernsbacher, Ph.D.

http://psych. wisc.edu/ lang/pdf/ Gernsbacher_ Scientifically_ Proven_.pdf

____________ _________ ___

Schramm, MA, BCBA

www.lulu.com/ knospe-aba

www.knospe-aba. com

____________ _________ ___

Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question

on Answers.

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __

[Guest guest]

Gernsbacher is famous for promoting her personal agenda regarding autism. She

often preaches that autism is a personality " choice " and that any effort to

ameliorate the effects of the condition--especially any effort to recover an

individual with autism--is insulting. She writes letters to the editor here in

Wisconsin telling parents that they should be like her--they should embrace the

differences as wonderful rather than debilitating. Of course, she describes her

child as having a very high functioning form of autism (I do not know anything

about her child first hand), which makes it much easier for her to cavalierly

insist that autism is " fun " and embrace-able. Tell that to my friend with the

son who, at age 11, still cannot sleep more than 2-3 hours each night and who

takes his clothes off (mind you, we live in Wisconsin!) any time and any where

and who spits at strangers without warning.

Gernsbacher is arrogant and heartless toward other parents who are working so

hard to help their children. I believe her so-called " scholarly " musings

deserve the same reaction I would give to any other undesireable and cruel

behavior -- ignore toward extinction.

(Obviously, she gets my goat. If I'm ever able to confirm what I've been told

about her psychological profile, I will no doubt make more of an effort to be

patient and understanding with her as I hope people will be with my son when he

is older. In the meantime, I can't help answering this way because she so often

attacks other parents here in Wisconsin and they cannot take the time to fight

back against her vitriol.)

This is just my two cents. Feel free to ignore me, too. I will not be at all

offended. :-)

--Liz in Wisconsin

[Guest guest]

If we answered all Gernsbacher's objections she insist that " true

science " would use double blind, placebo control groups, where neither

the students or teachers knew the method they were using or who was

autistic. This is the same tired rubbish we hear from the school

systems who don't want to pay: " it can never be proven scientifically " .

On the other hand there are real ethical problems to randomly

assigning real kids to placebo therapies. Could you do that? I

couldn't. These are not lab rats were talking about.

ABA has withstood the best scientific test: reproducibility. (And

more and better studies have come out since 2000.)

Here's a link to , Groen, Wynn 2000, for anyone who wants to read it.

http://aaidd.allenpress.com/pdfserv/10.1352%2F0895-8017(2000)105%3C0269:RTOIEI%3\

E2.0.CO%3B2

and to a clean copy of Gernsbacher's rant at Floortime.org

http://floortime.org/downloads/behavioral_treatment_autism.pdf

Pete (I'm a professional and a researcher for a living, but not in

Autism. I work my day job to pay for that :-)

--- In , Schramm <knospeaba_robert@...>

wrote:

>

> The problem with the article is that it makes a case against the

scientific part of all the studies that show ABA to be valid and then

offers a study that followed strict science protocol that showed no

statistical significance in almost all categories.

>

> Is that a compelling enough argument to change the way we label ABA

or is it a narrow minded game of semantics? I do not find it

compelling for several reasons but again, I would be interested in a

few other opinions, Reg, Joe, M. etc.

>

>