Response to Leaf et al., 2021

In this commentary, we respond to a recent article published by Leaf and colleagues (2021), entitled “Concerns About ABA-Based Intervention: An Evaluation and Recommendations”. In their article, the authors attempt to address concerns raised by autistic people about ABA-based interventions. We argue that they only superficially engage with these important issues, and fall short of supporting neurodiversity, despite their intention to do so. We discuss issues related to biased claims of effectiveness of ABA, the potential for ABA-based interventions to cause harm, the reliance on past human rights abuses to justify current potential for harm, a lack of empirical support related to intervention intensity recommended by ABA provider groups, and the rigidity of procedures used to achieve therapist-determined goals

The Interactional Structure of Accounts During Small Group Discussions Among Autistic Children Receiving Special Education Support in Finland

Through a conversation analytic approach, we investigate the emergence of accounts provided by autistic children in small-group discussions. Nine Finnish children (7–10 years old) attending school with special support participated in a five-month-duration pedagogical practice purposefully designed to enhance children’s participation in groups. We analyzed videos of sharing circles where children discussed their ideas and interests. Our data show three different account structures, which created different modes of children’s participation and gradually changed how they positioned themselves in the group. Results show how accounts can create different focuses of attention; reveal children’s reflections on what is relevant to them, and how to promote the exchange of ideas within a small group. Implications for the development of educational practices are discussed.publishedVersionPeer reviewe

The Role of Supported Joint Engagement and Parent Utterances in Language and Social Communication Development in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

This study examined associations between three parent–child engagement states and social communication, expressive language, and receptive language at 8 month follow-up, in 63 preschool-age children with autism spectrum disorder. We extend the literature on supported joint engagement by dividing this state into higher order (HSJE) and lower order types, with HSJE involving greater reciprocity in toy play. We also examined parents’ follow-in utterances that co-occurred with each state. We found that only HSJE predicts later social communication and expressive language, while object engagement predicts receptive language. HSJE combined with follow-in utterances (HSJE+FI) predicts all three outcomes when controlling for HSJE+FI in other engagement states. When controlling for total HSJE, HSJE+FI is predictive of receptive language

Anti-ableism and scientific accuracy in autism research: a false dichotomy

It was recently argued that autism researchers committed to rejecting ableist frameworks in their research may sacrifice “scientifically accurate” conceptualizations of autism. In this perspective piece, we argue that: (a) anti-ableism vs. scientific accuracy is a false dichotomy, (b) there is no ideology-free science that has claim to scientific accuracy, and (c) autism science has a history of false leads in part because of unexamined ableist ideologies that undergird researcher framings and interpretations of evidence. To illustrate our claims, we discuss several avenues of autism research that were promoted as scientific advances, but were eventually debunked or shown to have much less explanatory value than initially proposed. These research programs have involved claims about autism etiology, the nature of autism and autistic characteristics, and autism intervention. Common to these false leads have been ableist assumptions about autism that inform researcher perspectives. Negative impacts of this work have been mitigated in some areas of autism research, but these perspectives continue to exert influence on the lives of autistic people, including the availability of services, discourses about autism, and sociocultural conceptualizations of autistic people. Examining these false leads may help current researchers better understand how ableism may negatively influence their areas of inquiry. We close with a positive argument that promoting anti-ableism can be done in tandem with increasing scientific accuracy

Project AIM: Autism Intervention Meta-Analysis for Studies of Young Children

Article is forthcoming as of December 2019. Citation for published version will be added once released by the American Psychological Association.In this comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of group design studies of nonpharmacological early interventions designed for young children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), we report summary effects across seven early intervention types (behavioral, developmental, naturalistic developmental behavioral intervention [NDBI], TEACCH, sensory-based, animal-assisted, and technology-based), and 15 outcome categories indexing core and related ASD symptoms. A total of 1,615 effect sizes were gathered from 130 independent participant samples. A total of 6,240 participants, who ranged in age from 0-8 years, are represented across the studies. We synthesized effects within intervention and outcome type using a robust variance estimation approach to account for the nesting of effect sizes within studies. We also tracked study quality indicators, and report an additional set of summary effect sizes that restrict included studies to those meeting pre-specified quality indicators. Finally, we conducted moderator analyses to evaluate whether summary effects across intervention types were larger for proximal as compared to distal effects, and for context-bound as compared to generalized effects. We found that when study quality indicators were not taken into account, significant positive effects were found for behavioral, developmental, and NDBI intervention types. When effect size estimation was limited to studies with randomized controlled trial (RCT) designs, evidence of positive summary effects existed only for developmental and NDBI intervention types. This was also the case when outcomes measured by parent report were excluded. Finally, when effect estimation was limited to RCT designs and to outcomes for which there was no risk of detection bias, no intervention types showed significant effects on any outcome.Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the National Institutes of Health (U54HD083211; PI: Neul)Special Educatio

Pervasive Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest in Applied Behavior Analysis Autism Literature

Autistic people (including researchers and non-researchers) are becoming increasingly involved in, and increasingly critical of, autism intervention research. They have expressed concerns regarding applied behavior analysis (ABA) interventions on a number of grounds, one of which is the prevalence of conflicts of interest (COIs) among autism intervention researchers. COIs can introduce bias into the research process, and allow researchers to demonstrate positive effects for interventions that are not actually effective. However, there are no studies to date that examine the prevalence of COIs in behavioral journals. Because ABA services are routinely provided to autistic people as a means to address difficulties associated with autism, this is an important area of investigation. We tallied author COIs in articles published over a one-year period that tested, commented on, or reviewed ABA autism intervention strategies, extracted from eight journals devoted to publishing behavioral research. We coded included studies for COIs related to researcher employment as an ABA clinical provider or a training consultant to ABA clinical providers. We found that 84% of studies had at least one author with this type of COI, but they were only disclosed as COIs in 2% of studies. Additionally, 87% of studies with statements claiming the authors did not have COIs, were authored by researchers found to have clinical/training consultancy COIs. Pervasive, undisclosed COIs likely lead to researcher bias, and could at least partially account for persistent poor quality research in this area. The high prevalence of COIs among this research corroborates the concerns expressed by many autistic people. The autism community-- including autistic people, autism researchers, and other stakeholders-- should be aware of the prevalence of undisclosed COIs in this literature and take this into account when using, providing, or recommending ABA services