by Ronit Molko, Ph.D., BCBA-D
Strategic Advisor, LEARN Behavioral
Applied behavior analysis (ABA) is widely considered by many professionals and families to be the “gold standard” in intervention for children on the autism spectrum. With decades of empirical evidence to support its efficacy at teaching necessary skills and reducing maladaptive behaviors, ABA is broadly funded by private and government insurance plans and typically supported as the premiere teaching tool for autism.ABA is used more extensively than many people realize. In general terms, ABA refers to the science of teaching and learning or, more specifically, the idea that, over time and through repetition, we can increase behavior that is reinforced, while decreasing behavior that is not reinforced. Corporations and marketing companies use the principles of ABA to affect buyer behavior, just as teachers use ABA to manage students in classrooms. Likewise, ABA is used to train and modify behavior in athletes, musicians, employees, and even animals.
In the autism field, the services market has evolved and expanded, leading to significant variety among ABA providers. Consequently, the term “ABA” has become associated with a broad spectrum of services, some of which do not meet the standards and definitions of true applied behavior analysis.
Additionally, there is growing criticism from self-advocates and autistic adults who received ABA services and now share stories of experiencing PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) and trauma from the ABA they received. Stories like these are sad and heartbreaking to hear—and call upon all of us in our field to listen to and learn from the conversations, instead of plowing onward in an obstinate disregard for lived experiences. As a profession, we need to use these conversations to reconsider how we approach intervention, and ask ourselves: are we changing specific behaviors because we determine them to be appropriate or inappropriate or because making this change actually serves the person with autism?
We also need to understand the evolution of ABA over the past 70 years. To understand the evolution, one needs to understand the history, and how we reached the point where some individuals and groups find fault in ABA. In my opinion, we cannot simply declare that old ABA was harmful and bad, while current ABA is helpful and good. If our treatment harms even a single individual, that is one individual too many.
The origins of ABA
Up through the early 1900s, the predominant theories and schools of psychology focused on thoughts and feelings. Dr. John B. Watson, a pioneering psychologist, popularized the theory of behaviorism in 1913. Watson believed that instead of focusing on internal and mental states, the practice of psychology should focus on observable behavior. Dr. B. F. Skinner further developed the theories of behaviorism to describe how we learn—essentially, by describing and researching how our behavior is changed based on antecedents (what precedes a behavior) and consequences (what follows a behavior—i.e., the rewards and punishments we receive).
The principles of teaching using ABA were further defined by multiple researchers in the 1960s, forming the basis of ABA. In the mid-1960s, Dr. Ivar Lovaas developed a program designed to teach language to children with autism, using the principles of applied behavior analysis, with the goal of preventing children from being institutionalized. Lovaas’s program included 40 hours a week of intensive and rigid clinic-based ABA, with the findings of his research demonstrating the efficacy of intensive ABA on teaching language and other skills to children with autism. As a result of this research, early intervention programs were launched, and ABA became more popularized as the best form of intervention.
Nevertheless, at this time, the application of ABA was rigid and unnatural. Children were required to sit through multiple, repetitive drills to learn skills and sequences, and the number of hours of intervention were exhausting. The popularization of his methodology created a mindset among some parents and providers that intervention must be highly structured, rigid, adult-driven, and sometimes, aversive, meaning treatment could involve unpleasant techniques to alter maladaptive behavior.
Since the early 1970s, however, the world of ABA and the application of the principles of ABA have evolved enormously. Just like in other areas of healthcare, the field has progressed as more research has been conducted and newer strategies developed. ABA has evolved into a much more naturalistic, engaging, play-based, and child-directed form of intervention. In natural environment teaching (NET), for instance, treatment takes place within the ordinary routines of daily living, occurring during mealtimes, playtime, bath time, community outings (like a trip to the grocery store), and other natural parts of a child’s day. This sort of real-life teaching differs extensively from the overly formal, clinical settings of the past.
Today’s ABA programs should be tailored and customized to the needs, values, and culture of each child and family. ABA services need to involve choice-making and person-centered planning, in which each client and family steer and help make decisions about their target goals and treatment, and what fits within their family’s culture. Ultimately, every client and family need to decide what goals to target in therapy, with guidance from the behavior analyst. As in other areas of healthcare, research and best practice standards guide the strategies, techniques, and intensity of intervention. It is the combination of professional expertise and family input that aligns to create the most effective program for each child.
Consider, for instance, a conversation I had recently with the mother of a non-verbal child with autism who communicates regularly with noises one might describe as grunts. A behavior analyst wanted to use ABA to reduce that particular behavior, but the child’s mother did not agree. “Those noises are my child’s language,” she explained. The mother explained further that with each goal presented by her ABA team, she asked these questions:
- Does the goal respect my son’s privacy?
- Does it foster his independence?
- Does it cultivate his voice and self-expression?
The mother, in this scenario, knew what she wanted for her son—and advocated effectively for him.
Other parents I’ve talked to celebrate the skills and capabilities their children gained through ABA services, attributing their children’s gains to the dedication of their ABA providers. Many of these parents stress the importance of making sure the goals and strategies they were advised to use fit with the culture and parenting philosophy of their family. Not every parent or caregiver will advocate in this way or have the time and capacity to manage their children’s program. It’s up to us, as a profession, to honor and respect each client and family’s wishes and values, and to discuss issues related to things like dignity, individuality, and self-expression. It’s up to us to honor self-hood.
As the population of individuals with autism is aging, we now have a group of adults who received ABA services and wants to articulate and share their ABA experiences. I urge my colleagues to stop and listen—and use what we learn to inform the future of services. For example, some adults have articulated that making eye contact is physically unbearable, and, yet, this is one of the core skills ABA practitioners teach as a foundational part of learning.
Given what we’ve learned, it’s time to examine the degree to which each of the skills we teach benefits and serves individuals with autism, despite the fact that we may consider them appropriate social and communicative behaviors. In other words, we need to weigh our own self-interest as a society against what we’re learning from the individuals to whom we’ve devoted our careers.
Stay tuned for Dr. Molko’s upcoming story, where she offers advice on what to look for in a quality provider.