Dear Adria Nassim,
We would like to thank you for your recent article titled “Column: Why I Support ABA Therapy” published on Herald-Times Online, in which you shared your personal journey with Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) and dedication to science-based treatments for autism. We recognize that the use and support of ABA is a controversial topic in the autism community and appreciate both the vulnerability it took to share your own experience, as well as the balanced and nuanced approach you used when describing common critiques. As practitioners and supporters of ABA, it is important that we listen to the wider community (particularly those who receive ABA services), acknowledge these critiques, and learn from them to continue to develop our understanding and practices.
As you state, ABA is one of the few scientifically-supported approaches used to teach individuals with autism. In fact, among more than 500 marketed treatments for autism, ABA is the most extensively researched and scientifically supported, as evidenced by hundreds of peer-reviewed studies over the past 30 years. As you have correctly pointed out, the role of ABA is not limited to only addressing challenging behaviors, but also to help individuals develop personal, social, and communication skills. We appreciate the examples you provided of your own experiences, and how the development of new social skills enabled you to establish friendships and improve your organizational and planning skills. It is important that readers understand that ABA is by no means a cookie cutter approach. High quality ABA is individualized, person-centered, and carefully applied to meet the unique needs of each person.
We appreciated that you identified some of the critical views of ABA as well. One such critique cites early research on behavior analysis, such as the Lovaas studies conducted in the 60s/70s. It is important to highlight that many of those early practices, while certainly worthy of critique, are no longer considered ethical today under the guidelines established and enforced by governing bodies and institutions. The field was in its infancy at that time, a time when the prevailing and widely accepted belief was that the cold, aloof mothers caused their children’s autism.
Another critique you highlighted is that the goal of ABA is to “fix” and “normalize” children with autism. By contrast, contemporary ABA programs and practitioners attempt to identify areas that are meaningful and important for the client, and, as you have precisely stated, teach skills that individuals need to engage in self-care, social, and communication skills that can improve their quality of life in a meaningful way. To this effect, we invite your readers to peruse a previously written letter in on this topic.
As scientists and practitioners working in the field of autism, we are open to feedback as we believe all experiences are important for us to grow as a field. We greatly appreciate you sharing your personal and positive experience with ABA. Voices like yours are extremely important in spreading awareness of ABA and its positive and meaningful impacts on the life of individuals with autism and their families.
Sincerely,
Mi H. Trinh, BS
Elizabeth Callahan, M.A., BCBA
David Celiberti, PhD, BCBA-D
Erin Leif, PhD, BCBA-D
The Association for Science in Autism Treatment
