Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Objective In a recent response to a review of ABA literature, methodologies, and ethics, the authors of the response attempted to negate the compilation of research presented. The goal of their response was to advocate for the continued use of ABA and attempt to demonstrate that it is in fact effective in treating autism. The research utilized in the response does not pertain to the population discussed, does not present any neuroscientific research, and does not address intrinsic motivation, elevated levels of anxiety, or various other pertinent issues associated with the nonverbal autism population. Methods The current paper helps clarify any misinterpretation of the original research and seeks to advocate for greater protections and ethical compliance within this vulnerable subset of individuals on the autism spectrum. Additionally, more recent research has been included to assist in this clarification. Results Despite decades of usage as the primary method for this population worldwide, ABA has never been shown to be even slightly efficacious for the nonverbal Autism population. Conclusions Research in ABA continues to neglect the structure the autistic brain, the overstimulation of the autistic brain, the trajectory of child development, or the complex nature of human psychology, as all of these factors were ignored in the response and are ignored in ABA practice itself. Providing a treatment that causes pain in exchange for no benefit, even if unknowingly, is tantamount to torture and violates the most basic requirement of any therapy, to do no harm.
Shkedy et al. (Fri,) studied this question.