Sarah E. Frampton, PhD, BCBA-D, LBA(NE)
University of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, NE, United States

ASAT's Science CornerWe began this series on external validity with a scenario in which an administrator hears about a new and innovative treatment approach at a conference. The presenters at the conference shared some compelling data supporting the efficacy of the approach. The administrator may be eager to adopt this approach, as they wish to promote evidence-based practices within their district. However, the enthusiasm of the administrator must be tempered by some consideration of the extent to which the positive research outcomes have been obtained in multiple research studies (Frampton, 2025), with diverse participant samples (Barrall, 2026; Trapp, 2026), with children whose characteristics resemble those in their schools (Connolly, 2025), under conditions like those in the classrooms (Sullivan, 2026). Collectively, these factors enhance the external validity of a research line and suggest that an intervention may be effective in real-world conditions (Fahmie et al., 2023). As the administrator takes a closer look at this new treatment approach, they now recognize that though the findings from the study are promising, there are gaps that require further consideration.

What are Research Gaps and Why do They Matter?

Research gaps can be thought of as questions that have yet to be answered. Those unanswered questions result in uncertainty. For example, research studies have demonstrated that children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who communicate with vocal speech can be taught to make requests to meet their basic wants and needs (Coleman et al., 2020). However, for many years, it was unclear if the procedures that worked with vocal communicators with ASD would work to teach children with ASD who use speech-generating devices (SGDs). To fill this gap, researchers conducted studies across research labs, with participants of different presentations. Research has since shown that children with ASD who use SGDs could learn to request through tactics like those used in studies with children with ASD who vocally communicate (Muharib, 2026). Though this broad question has now been answered, as researchers look more closely into meeting the needs of individuals with ASD who use SGDs, new gaps will be identified. This ongoing process of identifying and filling gaps helps make research progressively more relevant to real-life situations.

Research lines, like bridges, are much more reliable when they have fewer gaps. As researchers replicate, or repeat, each other’s procedures in new places and with new participants, gaps are filled. Similarly, when researchers identify underrepresented groups of participants and include them in the research line, gaps are filled. When interventions are attempted in new formats, like telehealth, to evaluate new modalities, gaps are filled. To move from tightly controlled investigations conducted in research laboratories with only a few participants all the way to studies conducted with large samples of participants in community settings with non-expert implementers requires a variety of research tactics and methodologies (Smith et al., 2007).

Strong, reliable bridges are not built quickly, nor are research lines evaluating interventions to support individuals with ASD. Yet members of this population may have needs that require immediate attention. This urgency creates a dilemma for caregivers who wish to act in the best interests of their loved ones and may not want to wait for every research gap to be perfectly addressed. So, how should these gaps be handled in the meantime?

Minding the Gap

As discussed by Trapp (2026), even robust research lines have gaps. The existence of gaps does not necessarily invalidate the research, nor should it result in abandonment of a treatment approach that is working. As when walking across a bridge, it is the size and nature of the gap that must be considered before taking the next step.

Small gaps can be easily traversed through partnerships between service providers, caregivers, and the individual receiving services. Interventions that have been demonstrated as effective in research literature will always require customization to address the personally relevant areas of need of individual clients. For example, a service provider teaching an individual with ASD to ask for preferred items using a SGD will not select the same learning targets featured in the research article. Instead, the service provider will reference the literature, conduct relevant assessments with the individual, and consult with the caregiver to determine which requests to teach. This process allows the provider to bridge the research to practice gap to meet the needs of an individual client.

However, partnership alone may not be sufficient if a service provider does not have the appropriate training to deliver the intervention. As in the example above, if the service provider has never worked with a SGD user, the seemingly small gap between research and practice is now large. In this situation, service providers should adhere to their ethical guidelines and treat only within the scope of their competence (Brodhead et al., 2018; LaFrance et al., 2019). In this situation, if they are not appropriately trained to deliver an intervention on an SGD, they should refer the caregiver to a new service provider who has the appropriate training and experience. Though the service provider has an ethical obligation to consider their own competence, caregivers should also be empowered to ask service providers about their background specific to interventions (e.g., “Have you ever worked with an individual that uses a SGD?”) to make informed decisions about care for their loved one.

Like a bridge with many gaps, interventions that have yet to accrue a robust supporting research line should be approached with extreme caution. Poorly supported interventions have resulted in harm to persons with ASD (Offit, 2010). Given these stakes, we urge caregivers to familiarize themselves with resources such as those on the Association for Science in Autism Treatment, which describe a variety of treatment approaches and their supporting evidence (or lack of).

Closing the Gap

In summing up our series on external validity, we urge researchers to keep closing gaps. Researchers should conduct direct and systematic replications of published studies to continue evaluating the external validity of interventions and identify any important patterns about participants who benefit most and those who do not show optimal outcomes (Tincani & Travers, 2018; 2019; Walker & Carr, 2021). Researchers should pay attention to who is missing from ASD research (Stedman et al., 2019; Steinbrenner et al., 2022) and specifically recruit individuals from these populations into their studies. Simply waiting and hoping for diversity in participant pools will not be sufficient to close these critical gaps. Researchers should also consider if there are barriers preventing initial, as well as ongoing, participation that could be removed to increase access to research opportunities for people in all types of circumstances.

Publication of non-effects is also a critical aspect of this conversation. When an intervention does not work well for individuals with particular characteristics, this is an important finding (assuming quality indicators for high-quality research practices were used, see Tincani & Travers, 2018). This no-effect finding could lead to modifications to the intervention to better meet the needs of individuals in this population or lead to the identification of alternative approaches. Unfortunately, there is an acknowledged bias in publication toward positive results that may prevent consumers from getting a full picture of the actual effectiveness of an intervention (Tincani & Travers, 2018; 2019). Members of editorial boards that review research articles (Tereshko & Marya, 2024) should consider this implication as they determine whether to recommend an article’s acceptance into a journal. Ultimately, conducting, reviewing, and disseminating research on interventions for autistic persons are critical responsibilities that should never be taken for granted. These activities both set the course and establish guardrails for consumers of that research, both now and for years to come.

References

Barall, R. J. (2026). Science Corner: Who is missing from autism research – and why it matters. Science in Autism Treatment, 23(1).

Brodhead, M. T., Quigley, S. P., & Wilczynski, S. M. (2018). A call for discussion about scope of competence in behavior analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 11(4), 424-435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-00303-8

Coleman, H., Sutherland, K. S., Xu, Y., & Mason, H. (2020). Verbal mand interventions for young children with autism: A review of the literature. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 7(4), 318-332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-020-00195-x

Connolly, S. (2025). Science Corner: Interpreting standardized assessment scores in participant characterizations. Science in Autism Treatment, 22(8).

Fahmie, T. A., Rodriguez, N. M., Luczynski, K. C., Rahaman, J. A., Charles, B. M., & Zangrillo, A. N. (2023). Toward an explicit technology of ecological validity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 56(2), 302-322. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.972

Frampton, S. (2025). Science Corner: An overview of external validity. Science in Autism Treatment, 22(7).

LaFrance, D. L., Weiss, M. J., Kazemi, E., Gerenser, J., & Dobres, J. (2019). Multidisciplinary teaming: Enhancing collaboration through increased understanding. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12(3), 709-726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-019-00331-y

Muharib, R. (2026). A systematic review suggests speech-generating devices can be effective to increase communication skills of autistic preschoolers. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 1-6.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2025.2610656

Offit, P. A. (2008). Autism’s false prophets: Bad science, risky medicine, and the search for a cure. Columbia University Press.

Smith, T., Scahill, L., Dawson, G., Guthrie, D., Lord, C., Odom, S., Rogers, S. & Wagner, A. (2007). Designing research studies on psychosocial interventions in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(2), 354-366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0173-3

Stedman, A., Taylor, B., Erard, M., Peura, C., & Siegel, M. (2019). Are children severely affected by autism spectrum disorder underrepresented in treatment studies? An analysis of the literature. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(4), 1378–1390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3844-y

Steinbrenner, J. R., McIntyre, N., Rentschler, L. F., Pearson, J. N., Luelmo, P., Jaramillo, M. E., Boy, B. A., Wong, C., Nowell, S.W., Odom, S.L., & Hume, K. A. (2022). Patterns in reporting and participant inclusion related to race and ethnicity in autism intervention literature: Data from a large-scale systematic review of evidence-based practices. Autism, 26(8), 2026-2040. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361321107259

Sullivan, E. (2026). Science Corner: Ecological validity matters in the literature and in your living room. Science in Autism Treatment, 23(03).

Tereshko, L., & Marya, V. (2024). Science Corner: Understanding the review process of peer-reviewed articles. Science in Autism Treatment, 21(07).

Tincani, M., & Travers, J. (2018). Publishing single-case research design studies that do not demonstrate experimental control. Remedial and Special Education, 39(2), 118-128. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325176974

Tincani, M., & Travers, J. (2019). Replication research, publication bias, and applied behavior analysis. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 42(1), 59-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-019-00191-5

Trapp, W. (2026). Science Corner: The importance of participant characteristics when determining the external validity of a research line. Science in Autism Treatment, 23(2).

Walker, S. G., & Carr, J. E. (2021). Generality of findings from single-case designs: It’s not all about the “N”. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 14(4), 991-995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-020-00547-3

Reference for this Article:

Frampton, S. E. (2026). Science corner: Putting it altogether: Navigating gaps in research. Science in Autism Treatment, 23(4).

Other Articles Related to External and Internal Validity:

Other ASAT Articles:

 

#Educators #Researchers #SavvyConsumer

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email