Talk:Applied behavior analysis/Archive 2

This edit appended the following text to Applied behavior analysis #Effectiveness:

The study reviewed four articles, which statistically as the authors admit could not have acheived significance. Indeed, its publication is a curosity when it constrasts more through reviews (e.g., ^[1])

This text is a clear example of original research: it makes a claim about sources (namely, about Matson & Smith 2008 (doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2007.03.003), and about Spreckley & Boyd 2008 (doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.09.012)), but this claim is not supported by any sources. As per WP:OR, we cannot include text like this in Wikipedia, even if it is true. I have therefore removed the text. Please do not insert unsupported opinion like this into Wikipedia. I suggest discussing any further changes along these lines here, as per WP:BRD. (As it happens, the inserted text is also incorrect: Spreckley & Boyd reviewed 13 studies, not 4.) Eubulides (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Following up on the comment in User talk:72.94.83.204 #December 2008 saying "That they drew a conclusion from such a statistical sample is really questionable":

• They reported that there was inadequate evidence. I agree that we should summarize their work more accurately to say this, so I made this change to reflect the lack of evidence they found.
• It's not our place to write critiques of their work here: critiques are for reliable sources to write, not us.
• Applied behavior analysis #Effectiveness currently cites Myers et al. 2007 (PMID 17967921), Eikeseth 2008 (PMID 18385012), Rogers & Vismara 2008 (PMID 18444052), and Reichow & Wolery 2008 (PMID 18535894), all recent reviews on ABA+autism that reported positive results. These reviews all seemed to me to be of just as high, if not higher, quality than Matson & Smith 2008 (doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2007.03.003) but if you feel it would also be helpful to summarize Matson & Smith please propose some text along those lines.

Eubulides (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Like Behavior analysis in general, this page suffers from a serious lack of focs on current research concepts like the matching law, momentum, and relational frame theory. 76.124.231.211 (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This article needs a re-write. However, the article needs to be made simpler and more accessible rather than filled with every related topic. 69.127.219.21 (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: This selection may have been poorly written to some, but it's clearly readable. Just take a little patience to actually read it!

Lie To Me: A new show called "Lie To Me" is based on Behavioral Analysis. It also gives information... just the basics of Behavioral Analysis. All that, and it's quite an interesting show. If you like things like "Bones" or "CSI" or "Ghost Whisperer"...check it out!

69.138.69.0 (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Information Station Ad LIE TO ME

I've watched Lie to Me and it has nothing to do with ABA. 69.127.219.21 (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to split the self-control listing into self-control(behavior analysis) which I'd like to link back to this back as a sub-topic.

-F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.69.42.53 (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Reinforcement is a hypthetical contruct. The issue is not contructs but the scale of analysis on which they occur. Reversed reversal. 76.124.231.211 (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correctJcautilli (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. Refer to my talkpage. Reinforcement is not a hypothetical construct but a description of a behavioral law. I suggest you both at minimum read the hypothetical construct article all the way through. Preferably, read some behavior analytic literature then come back to this article. 69.127.219.21 (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I have been trying to find a source that explicitly states reinforcement is not a hypothetical construct. However, this is no easy task. It's like trying to find a source that states red is not blue, or that the sky isn't made out of raisins. Nobody ever writes that reinforcement isn't a hypothetical construct because it's such an obvious fact to anyone in the scientific community. 69.127.219.21 (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Skinner and Tolman seem to be almost wholly free of hypothetical constructs, although when Skinner invokes such notions as the ‘strain on the reserve’ (10, p. 289) it is difficult to be sure." http://www.psych.umn.edu/faculty/meehlp/013HypotheticalCconstructs.pdf

That is about as close as we are going to get. 69.127.219.21 (talk) 05:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's go back a few steps and look at the word "hypothetical." "Hypothetical" means "being or involving as a hypothesis." (Merriam-Webster 2012) A construct that is well-proven and accepted is not "hypothetical," hence most of cognitive and psychodynamic psychology is not "hypothetical." The word "hypothetical" here serves the pro-ABA bias of this article. I hope "psychological theory" is a better term. Svend la Rose (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Many of the citations used in this article are in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:V.

They take material published by proponents of ABA and treat their opinions as unbiased fact.

The whole article is also in violation of WP:NPOV, because it treats the opinions of one minority (the proponents of ABA) as more important than the opinions of another minority (Autists and the Autist right movement). This is based on supposed 'authority' on the side of the proponents, but this is unfactual as said proponents are a biased source. The proponents of ABA are not reliable sources for the EFFECTIVENESS of ABA any more than Adolf Eichmann is for the justifiability of the Endlösung... (Or Godwin is for the application of Godwin's corrolary :P).

the proponents of aba are not asserting their position from authority but from peer reviewed journals. That these proponents assert their collective scientific credibility is true, so if you want to destroy them in one fell swoop don't compare them to nazis but find credible published sources who say that JEAB & JABA et al are all a bunch of lies, self-serving propaganda, etc. However, PubMed Central is now the current archive for JEAB & JABA so you might also want to explain how PMC got 'fooled' into archiving this pack of lies btw. Michaelrayw2 (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are reliable, unbiased sources who confirm that ABA is viable, this article needs a serious rewrite. Robrecht 01:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Scientific sources are the most reliable available. From WP:RS:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

You can't get more reliable than peer-reviewed journals. Wikipedia does discuss minority points of view and the autism rights movement, but you have to provide reliable sources for them. You can't use logic, that's original research. Read through the archives for past discussions. Researchers would get just as much, if not more credit for disproving ABA as they would for proving it. The entire establishment of science is based on an attempt to remove bias, that's the purpose of peer review and replication of results. This discussion has occurred before, at least twice at this point. Please read through the archives. I have reverted your change to the main page - sciences and scientific testing has shown ABA to be the only proven method. If you have found other methods of treating autism that are proven and reported in peer-reviewed journals, cite them. Until then, ABA is the only proven method. The citations on the page discuss proof of ABA working, not its frequency. By altering the text as you did, you are making the article less accurate and the references do not support the interpretation you have provided. WLU 11:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You can in fact get more reliable than peer-reviewed journals. The next level is peer-reviewed studies by unbiased researchers in peer-reviewed journals. This whole matter of "treating" autism is further evidence of bias. The unbiased language would involve "changing [type of] behaviors associated with autism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svendlarose (talk • contribs) 01:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.

There are no comparable sources for the minority viewpoint that I've found. If you've found them, post them on the main or talk page, as a minority viewpoint. However, their existense as a minority viewpoint does not disprove the peer reviewed journals' discussions of proof. There is a criticisms section already, it can be expanded with reliable sources, but nothing can remove the proof of the scientific sources except other scientific sources or a newspaper article discussing how the researchers faked their results.

Scientific sources by their nature can not violate WP:UNDUE or WP:V. If you don't believe me, put in a request for comment, ask for a WP:3O or find some [[[WP:RS|reliable sources]] for the other viewpoints. The autism rights movement have their own entry in the criticisms section, several unsourced statements and a {{main}} link. Don't argue from logic, seek sources. The ARM may contest the ethical aspects of ABA, but until they have scientific proof that it is ineffective at teaching language, eye contact, motor skills and the other measures used to assess functioning. For those aspects of autism, ABA is proven. WLU 11:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, a peer reviewed journal is NOT reliable if all these peers are biased. This is not a use of logic, it is Wikipedia policy, as stated in the debates revolving around Creationism. References such as the Journal for ABA may be used as a source for the implementation and particulars of ABA, but not for it's effectiveness.

I don't follow this point. There are several scientific journal references for the effectiveness of ABA. Most of the references in this article are not JABA citations. For example, Howard et al. 2005 (PMID 15766629) is a fine research article supporting the use of ABA to treat autism, and was published in Research in Developmental Disabilities, a high-quality peer-reviewed journal that is not devoted to ABA. Eubulides 04:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You will have to find an unbiased source to back this up. Until you do, I am once again removing the 'only proven' line from the article. Do not revert again until you find such a source. And that's final. Robrecht 00:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As aditional points:

Claiming that ABA is the only proven treatment for Autism is unencyclopedic. You cannot put this in the article, unless you can conclusively prove that not a single other treatment for Autism is claimed to be proven in another peer reviewed journal. Again the burden of proof is on you: Find such conclusive proof in an unbiased source or the word 'only' is not admissable in this article. And to be honest you can't conclusively prove that it is the only proven treatment for Autism.

The use of 'only proven' in this article is either a weasel term or a Peacock term. The line 'only proven' does not clarify what about it is proven to be (Is it proven to exist? Proven to be effective, or ineffective?). More over, the word only serves to lend false and undue importance. Even if it is the only treatment that has been proven to work, this is not a notable fact. Just in the same way that 'B.A. Baracus is the only black member of the A-team' is not a notable fact. Unless ABA is somehow famous, exceptional or in some other way notable for being the only method proven to be effective in the treatment of Autism, this statement does not belong in the article.

ABA has the best-supported record in the literature, in the sense that more high-quality scientific studies support the use of ABA to treat autism than support any other method. I agree that the phrase only proven by itself is too strong, since the relative success of ABA needs to be placed into context. However, it would also be a mistake not to mention that ABA is well ahead of its competition in terms of having scientific support. Eubulides 04:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The following is not a threat, but something for you to think about: you are WikiLawyering in order to unfairly and unfactually keep this page unencyclopedic, merely because you are, apparently, a proponent of ABA. If you continue this, I will contact a Wikipedia staff member in order to discuss with them whether your actions constitute vandalism. Robrecht 00:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That sure sounds like a threat to me. Please stay cool. Eubulides 04:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the Applied Behavior Analysis page I felt it was very comprehensive. However, although there is a Wikipedia page for Ole Ivar Lovaas, there was nothing in the ABA page referencing him as one of the main founders of ABA. My addition of History will hopefully give insight into the beginnings of ABA therapy and start groundwork for others to add to it. Kmkessler (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It's fine to leave on Lovaas' page that he is one of the "founding fathers" but not on this page. This is because no one is the "official" founder which makes it unnecessary to mention in the article. Plus see here: Early intensive behavior intervention (EIBI) which I revised. It explains the method he developed there. Take care. ATC ^{. Talk} 07:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Lovaas was not a founder of ABA. He was a founder of EIBI (the application of ABA to autism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk • contribs) 00:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced ABA is the most common method for treating autism. Parents often have to sue districts in order to receive the expensive, intensive programs. It would be interesting to see a breakdown on how service is delivered.

The claim that ABA is the only scientically proven treatment for autism seems to be a common one among behaviorists, but I'm not convinced. I'm sure speech therapists, OTs and PTs have some research that backs their practices, excluding the sensory integration and facilitated communication controversies. Practices like Picture Exchange Systems, Social Stories, inclusion, and incidental teaching shouldn't be dismissed either.

As to the evidence that ABA is the only proven treatment, no one has been able to reproduce the amazing results of the 1987 Lovaas study. I read the Smith & Wynn article shortly after it came out around 2000, and remember the results weren't as dramatic as the original Lovaas group.

Perhaps there's a literature survey that crowns ABA as the only proven treatment. However, the McConachie and Diggle article from 2006 states that very few studies on ABA interventions with autism have adequate research design, and calls for further, improved research. Jwharhar 03:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Jwharhar, were you editing your comments as an anon IP? If so, please don't, I don't know if I should be reverting the changes as vandalism or inappropriate. Anyway, read through the archived comments on the proof, and note that anything regards this needs to be verifiable and come from reliable sources, integrated into the research in such a way that it is not original research. Even if results were not as dramatic as Lovaas, it's still scientific proof, and I have not seen any scientific proof of any other treatment working. If you can find it, post it and we can modify the ABA page accordingly. There's nothing wrong with making the page accurate regards 'only' versus 'one of' if it's reliably sourced. WLU 18:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reliable scientific proof that any method, including ABA, can claim to bring about autistic "recovery" or "cure." My concern is how some sites and advocates promote ABA as THE only option for autism that has any credibility. This is a prickly point for me since I was in special ed. for almost 20 years. I worked with parents who paid people to wave their hands over their son to affect his energy, another who took her kid to a televangelist, another who went barefoot for weeks so God would end her daughter's seizures. As an assistant, I was supposed to help one boy communicate by holding his wrist or elbow while he typed messages at a computer, and as a teacher I was instructed by an OT to put a heavy vest on a child regularly, while other students' IEPs required students to be brushed and listen to special sounds on headphones. Does ABA have a better research base than these procedures? Sure. Does that mean that the only person at an IEP meeting with anything to offer that is scientific is the behaviorist the family has brought in so their child with autism can go to his ABA program for $65,000 a year?

When people bring up ABA as a treatment for autism, they're not talking about having teachers fill out ABC sheets or make sure a schedule of reward or punishment is followed. The debate raging about ABA is a result of that first Lovaas study where about half the experimental group became "normal functioning," which was maybe 5 kids. Has their been enough evidence since then to tell parents of children with autism to all get lawyers, quit their jobs, sell their homes, and start intensively training their child 7 days a week, 8 hours a day? In my judgement, the research on Lovaas style early intervention isn't good enough, especially for older students who do not fall in the mild to moderate range. Obviously, I don't think one sentence in Wikipedia is going to bankrupt parents, but this is an emotional and complicated issue. There needs to be more research on ABA as well as at least one comparative study done to support behaviorist claims that spending tens of thousands of dollars on intensive 1:1 therapy is the only valid option for families dealing with autism. Jwharhar 13:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the archive and look at the references included in the page, they are the basis from which the article can say the method is proven. I've heard about the swimming with dolphins, the weighted vests, the special diets and chelation therapy. They are unproven. ABA has multiple scientific trials in which improvements are noted - as far as science can say, it is a proven method for increasing the functional abilities of children with autism. Due to the nature of scientific progress, it's not definitive or for all time but it's the only one that has reports in scientific journals, the gold standards for proof on wikipedia. Please look in the archive and at the references, and read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV policies, then post what you think. It is verifiable, even if it is not true. WLU 20:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll acknowledge the point that ABA has 20 years worth of research on interventions with autism, more than any other method to date, and that increases in IQ scores have been documented. While ABA methods are probably common, I still can't see how ABA intensive interventions for autism can be considered common, since a lot of families have a hard time finding someone to do it and the cost is so great. The quality and outcomes of the research still bother me, for example the summary you've linked to the Smith 2000 article acknowledges there were no differences between the intervention and non intervention groups on adaptive functioning and behavior problems. Jwharhar 02:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth. We don't determine if ABA is the best or an actual cure, we only report what others have said about it. And others have said that it's the only methodology proven to improve functioning. And the Smith article does document increases to intelligence, visual-spatial skills, language, and academics. WLU 05:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, we should put "Christianity/Islam/Judaïsm/etc... is the only true faith" on just about every religious article. Why? Because (especially for Christianity) so many people can't be wrong, can they? Problem is: they ARE wrong, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. So long as the only people who claim that ABA is the only treatment works for Autism are it's proponents, it is not verified by any real sense of the word. Also, and this is the Autist in me speaking, the Wikipedia policy of "verifiability, not truth" is an oxymoron. To verify means (and I quote the Wictionary here): "To substantiate or prove the truth of something". You can't verify something if it isn't true. My opinion is that ABA cannot be treatment for Autism for the same reason why electro-shock therapy isn't a treatment for homosexuality: Neither Autism not Homosexuality are actual illnesses, mental or otherwise. In the past Homosexuality WAS seen as a mental illness, in the past Wikipedia would have stated it was a mental illness. In the past, Wikipedia would have been wrong about this, despite what all the authorities of the time said about it. But since Wikipedia doesn't deal in opinions, let me just say this: taking statements made purely by proponents of something and claiming they are verified is a violation of WP:Neutrality. Therefore, I am removing the words 'only proven' and replacing them with 'a'. Don't change it back until you can prove that a non-proponent of ABA has conclusively proven that ABA works. Robrecht 00:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As a "proponent" of ABA, I am wondering if we now have to cite sources attempting to disprove gravity if some minority disagrees with it. It seems that peoples' acceptance of ABA as a science has been controvercial(sometimes at best). Regardless, there is one thing that seems to hold any science together. Replications. Just as newton's laws would be considered rubbish if no replications showed the same results, the same would go for behavior analysis. It is interesting how few peer reviewed articles with at least decent design are available in other fields of psychology. I can't begin to know what the general beef is with ABA, but chemistry journals are reviewed by chemists, physics journals by physicists, and behavior analysis journals are reviewed by behavior analysts and so on. It is very possible, if you were willing to be trained in data collection, for you to give us an "unbiased" frequency of hits, kicks, or correct items on test. Most likely, the "biased" behavior analyst will have the same or very similar observation as you. Unfortunately, no other field of psychology assesses themselves in this manner. If that were so, we would have a much thorough knowledge of how people behave.

The "opponent" of ABA writing on this page is arguing that there needs to be the allowance for other views about what ABA is and how effective it is. I challenge them to do so using peer reviewed research as a tool to disprove ABA instead of individual "opinion". Any robust science has no problem with attempts at its disproval. It is no more rediculous to judge the validity of research in ABA than in Physics, Chemistry, or other more accepted sciences except for that there are fewer replications in ABA than the more "grounded" sciences. We are making replications though. Statisticians will tell you that the use of single case subject design as a common evaluation method assessing our research is a very useful tool. If you don't believe them, ask them how much money they make looking at numbers and finding meaningful relationships/predictions with them(last time I checked, those were commonly accepted methods of quantifying things). As far as religion goes, the real problem with anything deemed religious fact is that it is subjective (using the 5 senses)and for the most part conveniently undisprovable because of this. Anyone can argue for or against having supernatural power, but test that with a good design and procedure and i'm sure there will not be Peer review, as the "proponent" stated, seems to be a few steps up from this subjectivity. Just as everyone explains gravity as something going from up to down, behavior analysts explain behavior in the form of objective observations and can describe their observations quantitatively.

Autism, you say is just as made up as homosexuality as far as mental illness is concerned. Well, behavior analysts do not determine treatment options based specific to diagnosis. We look at behavior (what to increase and what to decrease) keeping diagnoses in mind. On another note, I agree that autism isn't an illness, though generally people diagnosed with autism are considered a problem. Not to anyone autistic, but to people who don't know how to work with them correctly. It is tragic how people have treated people deemed mentally impaired in the past, and what they will do sometimes to escape the experience. Behavior analysts are, however, working very hard to lessen stress by training parents, teachers, and kids ways to make life easier for everyone.

As far as the "only proven" vs. "A proven", I agree with the "opponent" that there may be other ways and not necessarily used by behavior analysts. The problem is that either noone knows about them, they haven't been researched adequately, or they may be unethical. We'll see what happens though with future research. 199.17.30.76 01:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)BAiT199.17.30.76 01:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

References improve pages, and challenged information must be justified. The rest of your statement is too long to read. WLU 19:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

...As a parent of a child on the spectrum and someone well versed in surveying study results, I was struck that the section on Autism vastly understates the unknowns about this therapy. There is no balanced discussion about the times it is not effective. And the list of studies appear to build off of each other rather than build with new studies. In my experience that is a significant red flag. Especially given what's hidden at the end which is, essentially, all authors agree we don't know enough. The article list should start with the reality that we don't have conclusive answers on ABA therapy and Autism.

To be frank, I find that studies in areas like are far too often funded by those (or conducted ny those) who stand to profit from a positive result (in this case those who get paid to do these therapies). The way this section is written suggests this is a MAJOR concern with these studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsgarnett (talk • contribs) 20:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This addition is poorly sourced and should not appear in this article. One source is a commercial site selling services related to the added passage. The other source is a meeting abstract. Neither is a reliable source. CatPath (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Response from User InfoPurist copied here from User_talk:InfoPurist#Your_edits_to_Applied_behavior_analysis: "The international conference for Applied Behavior Analysis International is a peer reviewed setting, as is Stanford University's Medicine-X Conference. The citations are accurate, verifiable, and have been peer reviewed. The link to the cite for democratized ABA is also peer reviewed, and contains the entire science of Applied Behavior Analysis translated into code. Kindly review the cites before dismissing them."

Conference presentations are not reliable sources. The peer review conducted at scientific conferences is minimal and is based on abstracts submitted by the presenters (at best). At minimum, you need a rigorously peer-reviewed journal article that describes the effectiveness of the approach described in the autism-u.com site. Studies accepted and presented at conferences are often rejected later when written into a full manuscript and submitted to a peer-reviewed academic journal. The best source would be a review article in a scientific journal that reports the acceptance of this DIY approach in the wider ABA community, but I'm not aware of any such source. Without an appropriate source, it's too soon to make the additions you propose. CatPath (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Any basic understanding of ABA would reveal it is the most rigorous data driven behavioral science, for which nothing can exist without explicit evidence. Moreover, we have presented our data at ABAI, FABA, and Stanford and to date not one point is refuted now since 2013 by even one clinician or scientist because it is mathematical. Providing the means to disseminate the science is part of the ethical requirements for all BCBAs, and your suggestion that the information is poorly sourced has no merit. A program that coded the entire science that self-reports efficacy is the purest iteration of ABA in the absence of a clinician. Now 1:45, there are more than 6.8 Million people in the U.S. alone who cannot access the primary treatment for ASD, and providing the verified (Michael Wesolowski, BCBA-D a pioneer in the field, called Autism-U a harbinger in the field as he taught one of the first curriculums in ABA - since the 1970s - and oversees the Agency for Persons with Disabilities in the southern region of Florida). Finally, the BACB required parents be actively engaged in treatment, and the data produced by a parent would pass a Turing test as you would be unable to discern if a clinician or lay person created it. When a parent can produce the same reports as a clinician, we achieved verification, and it is why Autism-U is the subject of a bipartisan initiative to recognize the platform as a provider, historically a designation limited to humans. You are invited to verify these facts with Senator Marco Rubio and Senator Bill Nelson who support it, and for which Autism-U satisfied the scrutiny (and submitted to the scrutiny) of the FDA, the ONC, and HHS. Given that there can be no argument to the contrary, your reverting the edits is baseless and suggests bias.InfoPurist (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)InfoPurist

Also, we take issue with the dismissive statement we are selling anything. We are educating, which is the mission of Wilipedia. We also reduced the cost of treatment by up to 40K% from $100K/yr to fifty cents a day. We are the antithesis to the Martin Shkrelis of the world having coded the only means to change the primary treatment rate for all intellectual disabilities from less than 1% to 100%. We are the means by which 6.8 million people in need can access treatment who otherwise would not access it, given that there are ~16K certified BCBAs to deliver the primary treatment for all intellectual disabilities in the U.S., therefore the dissemination of science has never been more critical to date. To suggest it is too early to disseminate an applied science made digital is the same failed argument made by Kathy Dudek of Florida's AHCA, who's "too early" argument was ruled arbitrary and capricious in the USDC Southern District of Florida case that found withholding ABA causes irreparable harm, and the only thing your edits will surely accomplish.InfoPurist (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)InfoPurist

No one here is trying to stop you from advertising your services to those in need of them. You just can't do it on Wikipedia. Also, facts supported by unpublished statements from prominent individuals are not considered verifiable under Wikipedia guidelines. Those facts must be published in reliable sources before they can be deemed verifiable. And as I said before, meeting abstracts and commercial websites are poor sources. CatPath (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

As for your most recent addition (), I never said or implied ABA was experimental. However, a legal ruling requiring the government to fund ABA therapy for autism is not a validation of self- or parent-directed ABA. You really need to stop editing the article until a consensus is reached regarding what to do about your edits. CatPath (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

First, the peer reviewed sources are within the Wikipedia guidelines. Contrary to the assertion that the citation is an abstract, the content guidelines require precisely that, and to avoid lengthy full text primary sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_include_the_full_text_of_lengthy_primary_sources

Second, the policy on sourcing is verifiability. The verifiable sources are reliable (Stanford University, Behavior Analyst Certification Board, Florida Association of Behavior Analysts, Association for Behavior Analysis International, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are demonstrable leaders in academics, behavioral health, healthcare, and technology, and Autism-U is sourced as the creator of the work). According to Wikipedia's definition of a source Definition of a source The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The piece of work itself (the article, book) The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press) Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Third, the company Autism-U is inherently notable according to the terms for notability, as it is the focus of a bipartisan initiative to recognize its software as a provider by CMS, a designation historically reserved to humans, and would represent a watershed moment in artificial intelligence. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products, when the information verified and sourced includes the use of artificial intelligence to increase access to behavioral health treatment on a scale never before possible. Wikipedia is supposed to include updated information. Referring to sources in 2007 is relegating Wikipedia users to a historic, and not current, event when the advances in artificial intelligence, according to Moore's Law, demand we have learned something since 2007 which may be beneficial for Wiki readers to review. The ability to self-manage treatment and crowdsource clinical trial data having been verified since 2013, it is relevant to the field of AI that it be recognized as the catalyst, hence the edits to this section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) The arbitrary removal suggests bias for the reasons stated above.

Finally, this detail disrupts the Wikipedia guidelines that editors suggest maintain the dependency on clinicians for verification of any healthcare treatment data. This is contrary to the standards set by the BACB, as it necessitates it. Enabling self-directed (DIY) behavioral health treatment in the absence of a clinician . It is ironic that ABA is an important catalyst in redefining what it means to be a healthcare provider, and that informaton is being quashed by the editors of the ABA page.InfoPurist (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)InfoPurist

This page, which you linked in your response, is about adding quotes from primary sources. I'm not asking you quote the full text of a primary source. I'm asking for a link to the full text of a reliable source, which you have yet to provide. Conference abstracts are inherently poor sources because they can't be scrutinized by peer reviewers to the same degree as manuscripts submitted for publication to scholarly journals, which detail the methodology, data, results, and conclusions of scientific studies. CatPath (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we're progressing in our discussion, so I reached out to seek other opinions on the sources in question: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Need_opinions_on_sources_for_Applied_behavior_analysis. CatPath (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• while obviously not bound to WP MEDRS,I would go with... yet to provide. Conference abstracts are inherently poor sources because they can't be scrutinized by peer reviewers to the same degree as manuscripts submitted ...for articles...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC) for journals

I'd like to include a better definition -- can I just delete bad definitions and add good ones, or should I go through this talk page first? Here is what I'd like to add:

Applied Behavior Analysis: The science in which tactics derived from the principles of behavior are applied to improve socially significant behavior and experimentation is used to identify the variables responsible for the improvement in behavior. -- Cooper, Heron, Heward, 2007. Applied Behavior Analysis, Merril Prenitce Hall, Columbus Ohio.

Also, I'd like to include that ABA is the RESEARCH endeavour, not the treatment of anything -- that is a misnomer (from above source). I do understand, however, that it is often misused. Some thoughts on ABA can be found here: www.aboutbehavior.com/aba.php <--can this be used as a cited source...I'm not familiar with whether websites count. Please let me know how to proceed in editing this article. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Make sure it's a prose summary, not a quote, use a citation template and include it in footnote tags. pubmed/isbn template generator This page will generate an automatic template with the ISBN and with the appropriate checkbox will also enclose it in ref tags. The website isn't really a reliable source that I can see (see WP:RS for more info on reliable sources). Watch about spreading that website around too freely because it can look like WP:SPAM. WLU (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok -- I'll start this way and see if I'm doing things correctly. I removed the sentence b/c social significance is part of ABA -- if it is not socially significant than it is not applied behavior analysis. So -- while Behavior Analysis can modify ANY behavior, applied behavior analysis must be studying something of social significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk • contribs)

Please don't add commentary in the ref tags, it's for sources. They're not true footnotes like you would find in some social sciences texts. The article does represent the largest use of ABA, for autistic children for whom a lack of social skills is a significant factor. Basically you can remove anything that's unsourced at will, but keep in mind that the page should represent the field theoretically and realistically - meaning if you remove something that's true for some parts of ABA, it'd be nice if you replaced it in the relevant section. WLU (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by the commentary in a footnote? I didn't mean to do that if I did -- While ABA is the guiding science behind autism treatment...IT is not treatment...I'm going to delineate that (there are 4 domains of Behavior Analysis -- the philosophy, basic research, applied researc [ABA], and practice guided by the science) -- autism treatment is in the fourth domain, which Utilizes ABA, but is not ABA...this is a common misunderstanding-I'll source it too, so that it isn't just 'my opinion'Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:TALK so I don't have to space your comments (you seem to be getting better though). I removed the section in this edit, and you are correct it wasn't added by you, sorry about that. I thought I knew the stable version of the page, but apparently I missed this edit whenever it occurred. I'm actually surprised by much of the contents of this page, apparently I've been lax in keeping up with the changes - I thought all the 'new' stuff (stuff that I wasn't aware of) was from you, but I was wrong. Again my apologies. Your comment about sources is heartening, that kind of thing can be added so long as it is sourced. You may want to add those four sections to the article, and re-organize the page so the current information is in the appropriate section. I'm guessing that'll mean a very long practice section, but that's not unforgivable. You could even farm it off into it's own main page if it's long enough. WLU (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So -- I'm supposed to keep indenting to indicate that I was replying to your last post --I thought I was supposed to NOT indent while you DID indent -- I can imagine that was frustrating!Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent>There used to be two ways - ever-increasing indents with an eventual outdent like this post, and every author taking one spacing and sticking to it (like our discussion on my talk page). Now there's only the former, apparently we're obselete. There's no perfect way, no matter what it gets confusing, but in general you always space to the right and don't interrupt pre-existing discussions (i.e. always post at the bottom). WLU (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Josh, have you had a chance yet to read WP:BOLD? Generally, assuming good faith, you should feel free to make whatever improvements necessary until/unless another editor disagrees, then you stop and discuss. Uncited text can generally be deleted if you don't trust it, cited if it's correct, and cited text you may want to take more care with when it comes to deleting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to see a broad spectrum of how ABA applies to other areas such as the ones mentioned! It might be useful to briefly mention its relations to other therapies (PRT, ESDM...) that use ABA as a foundation.Jesssicagarnett (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

When defining prompting, I probably would not start with "The parent or therapist", since prompts can be naturally occuring, and environmental prompts.

Defining prompts, "A prompt is a cue or assistance to encourage the desired response from the student"

Prompts are often categorized into a prompt hierarchy from most intrusive to least intrusive. There is some controversy about what is considered most intrusive: physically intrusive versus hardest prompt to fade (ie verbal). In an errorless learning approach, prompts are given in a most-to-least sequence and faded systematically to ensure the student experiences a high level of success. A least-to-most method is preferred with some students who... (not sure how to finish this sentence. But, I think it is important to speak to both most-to-least, and least-to-most when describing prompting, as it is a more balanced view).

I agree with what you wrote about prompt fading, but this term should probably be used. I made some adjustments to what you wrote...I am open to more revisions.

"Prompts are faded systematically and as quickly as possible to avoid prompt dependency. The goal of teaching using prompts would be to fade prompts towards independence, so that no prompts are needed for the student to perform the desired behaviour"

Types of prompts:

Verbal prompts: Utilizing a vocalization to indicate the desired response. Ex: Saying "Take the toothpaste cap off" (Should be avoided when possible as verbal prompts are the hardest to fade);[citation needed]
I would add to this that it is appropriate to use a verbal prompt when teaching an expressive skill or functional language such as "Hello, Mrs. Smith" versus "Do you see Mrs. Smith?" to elicit a greeting.

Visual Prompts: a visual cue or picture. Ex. a picture schedule of toothbrushing or a picture of taking off the toothpaste

Gestural prompts: Utilizing a physical gesture to indicate the desired response. Ex: pointing at the toothpaste;

Positional prompt: the target stimulus is placed closer to the student (I think this is too technical, will need some revision).

Modeling: Modeling the desired response for the student. ex: taking the cap off to show the student how it is done.
I would suggest here to indicate that you would use this type of prompt only for students who learn through imitation and can attend to a model.

Physical prompts: Physically manipulating the student to produce the desired response. Ex: hand-over-hand manipulation of a faucet handle to begin hand-washing.
I might add the degrees of physical prompts such as a full physical prompt (ie. Hand-over-hand), versus a partial physical prompt

Since this is not an exhaustive list of possible prompts, I think it might be necessary to say just that. There are other prompts such as within-stimulus prompts, environmental prompts, etc.

I would end this discussion on prompts indicating that not all prompts need to be used in the hierarchy, but that the individual teaching would choose the prompts that are most effective for that student.--Svernon (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest adding the categories of prompts (response prompts and stimulus prompts) and perhaps sort the types of prompts into these? Jesssicagarnett (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Applied behavior analysis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.appliedbehavioralstrategies.com/what-is-aba.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129034739/http://www.ejoba.org/PDF/2009_2/Marr_2009.pdf to http://www.ejoba.org/PDF/2009_2/Marr_2009.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

ABA is NOT a form of behavior modification. Here it says by Mace (1994) in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis : "Beyond behavior modification: A return to behavior analysis... Before applied behavior analysts had a methodology to identify the conditions maintaining aberrant behavior, the reinforcement histories that gave rise to current behavior-environment interactions were largely ignored...Instead, existing repertoires were altered and new ones established by superimposing reinforcement contingencies, punishment contingencies, or both, onto the current environmental contingencies or unknown processes that maintained aberrant behavior. The approach was generically known as behavior modification..."

Also see here (Mace & Critchfield, 2010 in the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior ): "We briefly summarize...the foundation for the field of behavior modification. Modification of...undesirable behaviors was accomplished through the use of a wide range of differential positive and negative reinforcement procedures used with and without extinction... ABA changed abruptly in the mid-1980s... Known collectively as the functional analysis methodologies... these procedures shifted the focus of ABA research to determining the factors that maintain undesirable behavior and using this information to promote replacement behaviors that serve the same function (e.g., see Pelios, Morren, Tesch, & Axelrod, 1999)." ATC ^{. Talk} 04:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

And here (Pelios, Morren, Tesch, and Axelrod in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis ): "Additional perspectives for the explanation of the development and spread of functional analysis methodology become apparent when one examines the broader context of the evolution of the scientific community of applied behavior analysis over the past three decades (1970s through 1990s). Behavior modification was an early approach that emphasized how powerful reinforcement and punishment contingencies can change behavior regardless of its causes. Applied behavior analysis was an approach that emphasized the analysis of functional relations between behavior and its causes (Mace, 1994)." ATC ^{. Talk} 00:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused, all these quotes are talking about behaviour modification No-genius (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

In the main body of the text, the term "child" is used repeatedly. It would be more appropriate to use the term "student" as many service recipients are adults. 71.225.2.34 00:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The above comments were moved over from the ABA mediation page - that was the wrong place to put them. WLU 15:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. According to ABA theory, this methodology should work on any person, adult or child. Technically, it would even work on intelligent animals, too. ;)

I vote to change occurrances of 'child' to "student" or "person" or another compatible word. Archfool 15:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for archiving that prematurely, your suggested changes appear fine to me, so I say go ahead. WLU 18:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope I am not too late- as a Behaviour Analyst working 24/7 with Autistics I am not comfortable with child or student. Not all autistics are children, and not all therapy is in a tutor/student model (even within ABA). "Behind the scenes" we [members of the therapy team] usually refer to people we are working with as 'clients' as this conveys that we are working FOR them, and has no connotations of age/method bias.

"Person" is too much of an attempt at polical correctness, so much so that it is inaccurate. We are referring to persons who are receiving Applied Behaviour Analysis intervention, so using the label "person" does not retain this meaning. I suggest "client" as being appropriate, as it: 1) Conveys that we are working FOR or WITH the individual. 2) Is not biased towards their age or the school/methodology of ABA such as "child" or "student/pupil" would be. 3) The professional/academic designation and the in-person descriptor are not identical. While we would refer to XX as a client to other professional/para-professionals, to the person or the parent it is usually "Billy" or "Beanhead" or another organically occurring social name. So- the designation of the receiver of therapy need only be accurate within the professional context, and appropriate within the personal/social context. -Drew ( Clin.Psych./Behaviour Analyst working full-time with Autistics ) Plutophanes 11 November 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC).

I think the word individual or person is suitable in the place of children Tanaya Aaditya Samdurkar (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The writing in this article is chaotic. It's not helping the cause of Behaviorism much to have things explained so poorly (read B.F. Skinner to see how to write concisely). It's also too long and verbose. You could cut it by 1/3 to 1/2 to good effect. But somebody has to do it who knows how to write & punctuate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.127.45 (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The intro is impenetrable for a layman and is narrow in scope. The intro explains (poorly) only a part of ABA instead of it's broader empirical goals. It is also full of jargon. Please don't tell me to rewrite the intro. I tried, and my changes were reverted (probably by someone who doesn't even know what ABA is) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.219.21 (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I gave the intro another shot. Of course, my change was reverted back to the crappy original intro for no specific reason in 30 seconds. What is the point of editing if some grammar snob is going to revert your edit for putting a comma where there should be a semicolon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.219.21 (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it was spelling the possessive pronoun as "it's" and changing "into" into "in"—"into" is correct when it's an action (citing New Oxford American Dictionary 2 edition 1995); nothing to do with semi-colons. Having elementary grammatical errors in the lead demeans the whole article. That said, your second try was much better. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That is absolutely ridiculous. So I get a vandalism warning for a minor typo? Isn't it easier to just change the minor typo instead of reverting and issuing me a vandalism warning? Are you guys serious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.219.21 (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No user warning from me. My revert was because it (your first attempt) was worse than the stuff it replaced. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I got a warning from some random guy. He justified it with vague references to "Wikipedia Policy". But I have changed my mind about the current intro. I think it barely makes sense at all, but better to have a grammatically perfect intro than a factually perfect one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.219.21 (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Says the guy with 135 IQ and a psych degree, after puzzling over this jargon-laden free-association: "So it's B-mod, right?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.120.90 (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is hard to understand, for a layperson. There is a ton of jargon. Wikipedia is usually much easier for a layperson to understand. This article is written for professionals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gclose11 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I think this article should be in simple official language Tanaya Aaditya Samdurkar (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Page lacks a section for critiques of behavior analysis. This should be included. Research in behavior analysis has failed to find additive effects for functional analysis over contingency management alone. In addition, multiple critiques have been certed around the restrictedrange of populations that behavior analytic research today is being conducted with —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.95.151.139 (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a critique for any other natural science? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Behaviorism is a particular school of psychology. Particular schools of natural science are not dogma. They are open to critique as a matter of course under the scientific method. 71.163.107.151 (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

With ABA having the term "applied" in its name it suggests it to be an applied science. Eugenics has its criticisms despite the fact that it is based upon data from genetics, but has critiques because of the consequences and effectiveness of its application. I think this page at least should have a section questioning the ethics of ABA and its applications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.41.204 (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is a reasonably notable body of criticism of a science or of its application, it seems to me that it would make sense to mention that. Being an autism activist, I couldn't provide the NPOV to do that, but there are quite a few people in the autism acceptance community who have issues with the Lovaas method - mainly with regard to consent on the part of the supposed client, and (particularly at the Judge Rotenberg Centre [please correct spelling if needed]) the use of electric shock as aversives. I know that there is a link to Autism Activism at that point, but it might help to have some context for that link. Philculmer (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The critic section should add source to claim as these clams are not supported by any source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knutjb (talk • contribs) 09:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Should be pared back. Locochoko (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@CatPath: Hello! My revision, in which I put "criticisms" under its own header, was just undone. I understand the reasoning - "this places undue weight... on criticisms, which only refer to autism." Is there some middle ground? For example, can we put it under the header but label it "Criticisms regarding use as autism therapy" or words to that effect? There is a growing chorus of #ActuallyAutistic people who are talking about their negative experiences with it, and I think that is notable enough to deserve its own subheading. Also the section is well-referenced and long enough to be its own section, and it's kinda hiding away in its current location. Thanks Locochoko (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Edited to tag user properly :) Locochoko (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the quality of the references is poor. The main claim made in the subsection is that ABA causes PTSD in many autistics. The medical claim that ABA causes PTSD requires a secondary source (review article) published in a reputable scientific journal (see WP:MEDRS). The (poorly-designed) study that is cited is a primary source, and the remaining sources are news articles and a personal blog. Giving the "Criticisms" section its own header in any form would give even more prominence to a low-quality study that would normally be deleted under a strict application of MEDMRS. Note that all of the sources provided under "Efficacy" are comprehensive reviews or meta-analyses of multiple studies. Properly sourced accounts of negative experiences of autistics who went through ABA are better suited for Autism rights movement. CatPath (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed the passage that discusses the controversial practices being implemented at the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center. None of the three sources cited mention ABA. CatPath (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It is quite confusing to have to articles referring to the same form of treatment.
ABA is Behavior Modification in Applied Settings (also the book of the same name). It's basically modifying and reinforcing behavior by applying the use of behavior analysis (devised by B.F. Skinner). Moreover, See here: . Behavior Modification has the same definition.

Not all ABA programs refer to Early Intensive Behavior Intervention/the Lovaas method or Pivotal response treatment (PRT), all of which are utilized for children and even young adults with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). For other programs, ABA can be applied to various problems with which people have. It's called Positive behavior support (PBS, a form of ABA).

Finally, see here: . Click "Search inside the book" and type Behavior Modification. It stated "Behavior Modification is an old expression [for Applied Behavior Analysis]".

Everything mentioned on the Behavior Mod article should be moved to the history section of Applied Behavior Analysis.
I would need approval for the articles to be merged with the information into one article: Applied Behavior Analysis.
Thanks!
ATC ^{. Talk} 02:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Before we jump into things, are we sure the two are synonymous and that the first term has superceded the second term, and that this has been generally accepted? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I will admit other books say that ABA is a form of Behavior Modification but they both have the same definition. I know this would be an original resource but Doreen Granpeesheh, a clinical psychologist and behavior analyst who studied under Ivar Lovaas at UCLA supports my conclusion. She has opened a clinic in Southern California and is recovering thousands of children...Anyway my point is during an interview by Fox News on her life and her mission in helping ASD children she said "Behavior modification is what we used to call it in the old days. It's based on how you reinforce something or don't reinforce something." ATC ^{. Talk} 15:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I think at times scientific journals use Behavior Modification as a synonym for Behavior therapy although it is inaccurate. For example, they used to call Cognitive-Behavior Modification what is really called Cognitive-behavior therapy, a form of behavior/psychotherapy NOT behavior analysis. It is widely established, when treating autism, as the Lovaas/UCLA model of ABA; the latter of which is a behavioral science. ATC ^{. Talk} 16:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Also see here: . It's a scholarly article which explains that ABA is NOT only used as a therapy for autism but for also reinforcing behavior in general. ATC ^{. Talk}

Resolved the issue. I found a journal explaining the controversy over the terms. See here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2223172/. It states as follows: "A New Science? [section] Perhaps there is a tendency to draw pejorative contrasts between PBS and ABA in order to bolster claims about the status of PBS as a new and distinct science or discipline (e.g., Bambara et al., 1994; E. Carr, 1997; E. Carr et al., 2002; Knoster et al., 2003; Sisson, 1992). There may be disagreement among PBS leaders on this point. On the one hand, for example, Horner (2000) stated that 'Positive behavior support is not a new approach. … [It is] the application of behavior analysis to the social problems created by such behaviors as self-injury' (p. 97). He further stated, 'There is no difference in theory or science between positive behavior support and behavior modification. These are the same approach with different names. If any difference exists, it is in the acceptance [by PBS] of much larger outcomes and the need to deliver the global technology that will deliver these outcomes' (p. 99). Other writers have referred to PBS as an 'extension' of applied behavior analysis (e.g., Turnbull et al., 2002, p. 377). ATC ^{. Talk} 21:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Damn, I knew there was something else I meant to check...ask some psychologists at work about this.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's still controversial but ask. We need more than one source to verify this, and behavior modification is still used to describe other behavioral therapies that aren't based on behavior analysis. That's what several other journals do. I do not understand why they don't just call it "behavior therapy" but it's still good to check on. Furthermore, Behavior modification, Positive behavior support (PBS), and applied behavior analysis (ABA) all have the same definition. The way I view it is: in the old days behavior modification used a form of operant conditioning known as aversives such as electric shocks. Now they use a form of operant conditioning to what they now call positive reinforcement, the basis for ABA and its subtype PBS. ATC ^{. Talk} 07:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think it is appropriate to say that Applied Behavior Analysis is the same as Behavior Modification. The latter is broader, which means that treating these two subjects as one would exclude other approaches or areas subsumed under BM. Reynolds and Wilson cited some distinctions.^[1] First, ABA emphasizes the analysis of the effects of independent events or variables on the occurrence of specific behavior or responses. Secondly, its conceptualization of the term behavior is more limited in the sense that it does not subscribe to the traditional conceptualization of the term as the observable activity of an organism that is moving about, standing still, doing activities, interacting with objects, making sounds, etc. ABA focuses on discrete classes of behavior and conceptualizes the individual as a total functioning organism. Alan Kazdin also cited nine distinctive characteristics of ABA compared with other behavior modification techniques.^[2] Darwin Naz (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)