Indexador

Abstract Feelings have long run high between many autistic advocates and behavior analysts. The former often experience and perceive ABA as harmful and traumatic in its methods, and prejudicial and stigmatizing in its objectives, with some of the latter retorting that criticisms reflect misunderstandings of the science rather than areas of true concern. The result? A deep and contentious conceptual divide, leaving little room for dialogue or progress. Recent months, though, have seen a tentative shift. Alongside recognition that behavioral interventions are so deeply entrenched that they are here to stay, some critical autism scholars are gingerly initiating public conversations with behavioral practitioners in a spirit of taking a pragmatic approach to meaningful reform. Further, a new generation of behavior analysts—including some autistic practitioners—is emerging, recognizing problems in their field, and considering how to address them. Interest in such developments is spreading and signals an opportunity for behavior analysts to follow other academic and advocate communities that recognize the importance of interdisciplinarity and critical self-reflection to evolve as a field. We—an interdisciplinary team of critical autism, neurodiversity, and behavior analysis scholars—feel that formalizing a broad field for scholars and practitioners sharing these ambitions holds potential. This field—let’s call it Critical Behavioral Studies —would favor profound social, cultural, and historical understanding, a commitment to extend the scope of training to better contextualize practice in relation to the group served, and the self-examination that would bring meaningful change to the field.

Abstract Supporting people with neurodevelopmental disabilities often requires interdisciplinary collaboration and effective partnerships with clients and their families. Behavior analysts receive intensive training and supervision in a variety of domains; however, expanding interdisciplinary training for behavior analysts is needed. Interdisciplinary training programs, such as the Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental and Related Disabilities (LEND) programs, offer trainees the opportunity to hone their skills as advocates for people with neurodevelopmental disabilities and collaborators as part of an interdisciplinary team. Historically, many LEND programs have not offered training positions specifically to behavior analysis students or professionals, although some behavior analysts have participated as trainees in other disciplines such as psychology or special education. The benefits, barriers, and possible future directions of interdisciplinary training for behavior analysts within a LEND program are discussed through the experience of the University of Cincinnati LEND Program which added an Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) training track in 2020.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

This study reanalyzes the Latency-Based Interview-Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA) as a more efficient alternative to the traditional Rate-Based IISCA for assessing challenging behaviors in neurodivergent populations. Functional analysis is a gold standard in Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), yet conventional rate-based methods often require repeated exposures to challenging behavior, raising ethical concerns regarding safety and trauma. Latency-based IISCA offers a solution by focusing on the time to the first response rather than the response rate, thereby reducing exposure to evocative situations. This research builds upon prior findings with Brazilian participants, extending the approach to a U.S. cohort with autism and other developmental disabilities. Results demonstrated consistent functional control across both groups, with latency-based IISCA strongly aligning with rate-based outcomes, reducing analysis duration by 51% and behavioral occurrences by 86%. Evaluations by expert researchers indicated that the latency-based IISCA was safe, effective, and socially valid, with high ratings for acceptability and efficiency. These findings highlight the generalizability of latency-based IISCA, supporting its adoption as a potentially more compassionate assessment method that prioritizes client well-being while maintaining analytic rigor. Many aspects of this approach align with contemporary calls for trauma-informed ABA practices, underscoring its potential to serve as a preferred method for behavior analysts working with diverse populations. Future research should explore broader applications of latency-based IISCA across various behavioral topographies and clinical settings.

Abstract The Step it UP! Game, a modified version of the Good Behavior Game (GBG), has previously been shown to increase physical activity levels among elementary school children and adults with disabilities. The purpose of this study was to compare a novel modification of the GBG targeting physical activity, the Don't Stop! Game, with the Step it UP! Game. Participants included 14 young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Three conditions were alternated randomly within a multielement design: baseline, Step it UP! Game (in which the team with the most steps wins a prize), and Don't Stop! Game (in which the team with the fewest demerits for standing still wins a prize). All 14 participants had higher steps per minute during intervention conditions relative to baseline, but the degree of difference between intervention conditions differed across participants. The Don't Stop! Game was preferred by more participants.

Abstract This concise review summarizes the trends and outcomes of social validity assessments specifically related to functional analyses published between 2020 and 2024. Results indicate that very little data on the social validity of functional analyses have been published. However, data that have been published are generally positive. We conclude with discussion and recommendations for researchers and clinicians.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

AbstractWe developed five novel quantitative models of punishment based on the generalized matching law (GML). Two of the new models were based on Deluty's additive theory of punishment, two were based on de Villiers's subtractive theory of punishment, and the last was based on the concatenated GML (cGML). Using information criteria, we compared the descriptive accuracies of these models against each other and against the GML. To obtain a data set that fairly compared these complex models, we exposed 30 human participants to 36 concurrent random‐interval random‐interval reinforcement schedules via a recently developed rapid‐acquisition operant procedure (procedure for rapidly establishing steady‐state behavior). This experimental design allowed us to fit the models to 30 data sets ranging from 22 to 36 data points each, comparing the models' descriptive accuracy using Akaike information criteria, corrected for small samples (AICc). The punishment model based on the cGML had the lowest AICc value of the set, with an Akaike weight of 0.99. Thus, this cGML‐based punishment model is presumed to be the best contemporary quantitative model of punishment. We discuss the theoretical strengths and weaknesses of these models and future directions of GML‐based punishment model development.