ABA Therapies?

Post Reply New Topic

Callista, I must ask how much time you have spent actually observing ABA therapy done by skilled practioners? Or are your arguments based solely on theory and what you have heard from others? Because I have to say, what you describe in your posts, and the objections you raise, would all be very valid if that was the way ABA actually happened. But what you are describing is a model of intervention that simply doesn't exist anymore and insisting that it remains flawed because it's origins may have been flawed fails to become a good argument IMHO ( your quote: "Yes, therapy which is called "ABA" now includes teaching the reasons behind a behavior. But the theory of ABA itself posits that teaching the reasons behind anything--or, in fact, targeting the child's cognitive state at all--is useless and unscientific.") The OP is asking about current ABA, not what happened over 50 years ago.

I am not saying it never happens they way you suppose it does, but what I am saying is that I would anticipate that it is exceedingly rare, at least these days. My daughter had 4 ABA therapists, none of whom conducted themselves in any way at all like you seem to think they do, and I have had numerous friends who's children also participated in ABA, and not a single one has ever shared a negative story. Surely if the misuse of behaviorism was as rampant as some make it out to be, I would have come across at least one person in the present who had had a bad experience?

Your argument sounds good, on the surface, I suppose, but it is filled with statements that I am not sure you have thought all the way through. For example, in strict behavioral terms, I think it is a very large stretch to call lack of reward an aversive, wouldn't you? I mean, an aversive is something negative "inflicted" on someone in response to a behavior. Failing to reward is not quite the same thing. In fact, it's not at all the same thing. You also claim it takes the intrinsic joy of learning out of the picture. I believe that is a failed application of motivational theory. One thing you will learn when you get out of school is that a good deal of the theory you are taught does not really translate directly to the real world (yes, I have a graduate degree in psychology). Motivation is much more complicated than any of the theories can explain. Rewarding someone for behavior does not always extinguish intrinsic motivation. It simply doesn't. Because sometimes people are not intrinsically motivated to begin with. You cannot destroy that which doesn't exist.

My mother is an occupational therapist who has worked with autistic children. She often could not find a babysitter, so I accompanied her to work. My knowledge of the theory of ABA comes from psychology lectures, textbooks, and my own access to the psychology journals where researchers and professionals publish their findings. I have also watched videos of ABA sessions and talked to autistic and non-autistic people who have experienced ABA therapy, as well as to their parents and teachers. My mother has gotten in trouble for going outside the "approved" methods of treating the clients.

I would like to note that there is no consensus that ABA is the best way to teach autistic children. There are many other possibilities: For example, TEACHH, Floortime, or the more eclectic and generalized speech/language and OT methods used for disabled children in general. The problem is that ABA is the best-researched, and it's difficult to get funding for anything else. Many professionals believe that ABA is counterproductive, inefficient, or suboptimal. Currently I'm taking an animal intelligence class; in animal behavior studies, behaviorist-style teaching is still the norm--but its weaknesses, including the lack of generalization and prompt dependence, are well known and understood. Primate researchers, especially those working with very intelligent animals like chimpanzees, have been going beyond behaviorist theory since the 80s, with the understanding that the behavior of these animals simply cannot be explained by simple stimulus-response theory. For humans, it becomes almost untenable to teach via stimulus-response, shaping, and similar... except for autistic humans, whose ability to learn is apparently limited to less than that of a monkey.

Except that it isn't. We can learn. When Lovaas first put forth his theory, he really did believe that we were less flexible and able to learn than the chimpanzees learning sign language and displaying natural imitative learning. That's not true, though. It never has been. The more we try to make ABA fit the true learning styles of autistic people, the less it is actually ABA and the more it becomes a true teaching method.

They need to stop calling it ABA, get rid of the outmoded behaviorism at the root of it, and start researching what actually works. If they stay stuck on the Lovaas method, they'll just be adding more and more epicycles, and the last time we did that, we excommunicated Galileo.

OK, so...you have not watched a live ABA therapy session, and I am betting that the autistics you have spoken to are adults who probably experienced something that is not necessarily even close to what ABA is like today.



To my knowledge, no one on this thread has ever claimed that it was. I think all anyone is saying is that it is a way to teach autistic children. And for some children, it is a very effective way.



Parents the world over use stimulus-response, shaping, extinction, schedules of reinforcement...a whole host of behavioral techniques. Not just on autistic kids. On all kids. For certain types of learning, behaviorism works. Linking it to monkeys is done to persuade people to view it as vile or degrading. There is nothing degrading about the concept of behaviorism. Things happen that cause people to behave, and whether or not that behavior is repeated is often related to what happens after the behavior. Not rocket science. Not evil. A simple observation of human behavior.

I do agree that more research needs to be done on other types of intervention because ABA will not work for all kids. Saying that it has the most empirical support is an absolutely meaningless "praise" since most other methods either do not have the funding for rigorous research, or do not lend themselves to experimental design as easily as a more black-and-white approach like ABA.

But I need to "come clean" with why I feel so strongly about this: Because of Michelle Dawson's writings and at the urging of the adult auties I "hung" with when my daughter was first diagnosed, I nearly turned my back on the possibility of even trying ABA. Luckily, the auties I knew were respectful enough to state their objections, step back, and let me make my own decision. When I decided to try it, they supported me (with reservation, of course). And they were happy when we met with success because what they wanted most was for my daughter to succeed.

Not trying would have been a tremendous mistake. She never progressed with regular speech therapy. That was a complete wash for her. But she progressed rapidly with VB. And she responded well to ABA. Do I believe she would have eventually become verbal without the ABA? Yeah. I do. But well after the age of 3. Was she traumatized by the experience? Not at all. She still remembers it and asks for her therapist. She loved her therapy. She looked forward to it. For her, it was exactly what she needed: a very structured environment with very consistent rules and very predictable patterns. She ate it up. Even today, when she flies under the radar most of the time, she does best, is least stressed, and is most happy in a structured environment with consistent rules and predictable patterns.

Adults on the spectrum, IMHO, particularly those without children, need to be mindful of the potential power they might have. It is one thing to clearly state your reservations. It is another thing entirely to dismiss an entire method of helping today's autistic children because of things they have read or people they have talked to who are mostly criticizing something that doesn't really exist anymore. It's history. Things evolve. Things change. And it is an entirely other thing all together to try to make a parent's decision for them through subtle or overt pressure. We get enough pressure, every single day. Almost no choice we make is left unjudged by someone, and until you have kids, you really can't understand the monumental responsibility it is.

I understand that you are sharing the perspective you have learned. And I am among the parents who genuinely appreciate when Aspies share their perspectives. I have learned an immeasurable amount over the years. But you have your perspective because it has been taught to you, not because you have direct experience. I don't know how to say what I am trying to say...just be careful? That's not quite it. You are clearly a caring and articulate person. I enjoy your insights. But when it comes to something like this, I think it would be wise to remember that there is a difference between being on the spectrum and having direct experience with something and being on the spectrum and gaining an opinion due to what you have read and learned in the 3rd person. I'm not making any sense. I hope you can make sense of it, because I don't mean it in an offensive way at all. OK, maybe this is it: I have a graduate degree in psychology (I'm no psychological dummy) I have volunteered at a school for kids with autism before I ever even dreamed of having kids. I watched--first hand--hundreds, maybe even thousands, of hours of ABA therapy first hand. I learned how to do some of the programs on my own. I watched my daughter blossom. When you argue against my opinion, and other parents like me, based on 2nd-hand knowledge it can be very...don't know what word goes there. Dismissive?

Working on 3.5 hours of sleep. Probably not the right time to try to string together coherent statements. But I do have a point in there somewhere.

Second and first person, actually. I've had my behavior tracked on more than one cute little star chart, and it never, ever ended well.

You didn't include that when I asked you what your experience is and behavior tracking on star charts would not qualify as "ABA therapy." You seem to be missing the point that ABA therapy is not just about rewards. It is also about structuring learning in a way that allows mastery of the basics before moving on to more complex tasks. "Star charts" or any other system of identifying successes and acknowledging them may not have worked for you, but they work for many people--on and off the spectrum. Everyone is not you. Everyone does not learn like you.

Callista, after reading your initial post I had assumed you had been in an ABA classroom yourself. Receiving a star chart does not count as ABA; by that logic then just about every kid in the education system has had ABA. Those were some pretty strong accusations to make about ABA without having experienced it first hand, especially going so far as to call it abusive. As InThisTogether said, your opinion could potentially hold a lot of weight. Please keep that in mind. I would hope parents considering ABA therapy take the time to research and view therapy sessions for themselves rather than making decisions based on the opinion of someone who hasn't even experienced it for themselves, but you never know and I would hate to think that a child could possibly lose out on therapy that could help them.