Does Applied Behavior Analysis Violate Principles of Ethics and Bioethics? A Response to Wilkenfeld and McCarthy (2020)

Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and behavior analysts are key members of school-based teams that serve children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Behavior analysts approach assessment and intervention through the lens of applied behavior analysis (ABA). ABA-based interventions have been found effective for targeting skills across multiple domains for children with ASD. However, some SLPs may be unfamiliar with the breadth of ABA-based interventions. The intent of this tutorial is to briefly introduce key ABA principles, provide examples of ABA-based interventions used within schools, and identify strategies for successful collaboration between behavior analysts and SLPs. This tutorial draws from empirical studies of ABA-based interventions for children with ASD within school settings, as well as discussions in the extant literature about the use of behavior principles by SLPs and strategies for interdisciplinary collaboration. Given the prevalence of ASD at 1 in 68 children (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014) and the high cost of serving these children within schools (an average cost of 286% over regular education; Chambers, Shkolnik, & Perez, 2003), the need for effective, comprehensive service provision and efficiency within interdisciplinary teams is paramount. Communication, mutual understanding, and recognition of common ground between SLPs and behavior analysts can lead to successful collaboration.

Introduction Over the course of the past decade, the field of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) has become synonymous in the eyes of many parents, teachers and clinicians from other disciplines with treatment of autism. Many professionals in ABA do not fully welcome a narrow view of this applied science. However, it can be argued that this is partially a very good thing for our field. The perception of ABA as the most effective treatment for children with Autism Spectrum Disorders has come about as a result of the demonstrated effectiveness of the application of the principles and procedures consistent with the science of ABA (Lovaas, 1987; NYS DPH EIP, 1999: NRC, 2001). The lack of the identification of ABA as the most empirically effective treatment for other areas (e.g., and disorders), for which is it often applied, may stem from an absence of such data and formal application of our technology. Rather than lament the over identification of ABA with autism treatment, the more adaptive response would be to conduct the kind of empirical studies in the areas of and disorders that has served to bring ABA prominence in autism treatment. A major impediment to accomplishing this goal, in my view, is the lack of careful application of some of the tenets of applied behavior analysis to areas that typically described as psychological or emotional rather than behavioral. This needs to be addressed directly. As behavior analysts, we must be willing to use terms outside of our discipline, but insist on operational definitions for these terms when we use them. For example, a behavior analyst can treat a child who presents with a disorder by specifying the behavioral evidence of the disorder. Is it that the child is often happy, but becomes enraged when told or when there is a change in their schedule? Is it that they describe high levels of variability in their mood and would like to describe more stable levels?, or it is that the child behaves in certain ways more often than we would like (hitting, yelling, inactivity,) and describe this as evidence of a mood disorder? We can, if we choose to, make specific and measureable the evidence for the disorder/diagnosis, and then apply treatment. Subsequent evaluation of levels of the symptoms can enable us to determine empirically if treatment has reduced, increased or had no effect on these symptoms. Descriptive Differences between Behavior Analytic and Non- Behavior Analytic Approaches To understand why ABA based approaches to treatment of and issues less well accepted, we need to describe how behavior analytic and non-behavior analytic approaches fundamentally differ in terms of how professionals talk about (describe) and treat these issues. Before doing that we must confront the elephant in the room. What is a psychological or emotional issue? This argument can be phrased as are we treating the emotion/psyche or we treating behavior? If we step back just a little from this question we may be able to see that the treatment goal for both perspectives is to have treatment change behavior. Unfortunately, for behavior analysts the descriptions of treatment from a non-behavior analytic framework involves the use of descriptions of hypothesized mental processes. One of the fundamental tenets of our science is that we do not embrace such hypothetical entities such as mind and will, these terms refer to a possibly existing, but at the moment unobserved process or entity (Moore, 1995, p.36). While that may be how the question is correctly answered on the Behavior Analyst Certification Board exam, it is simply not what most psychologists believe and often not what some behavior analysts believe as well. Additionally the field of behavior analysis requires precise definitions and objective measurable outcomes (BACB, 2005). The treatment goal for many clinicians treating emotional and psychological issues may be that the patient self-reports to feel better as evidence of an improved condition. …

Recent mandates related to the implementation of evidence-based practices for individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) require that autism professionals both understand and are able to implement practices based on the science of applied behavior analysis (ABA). The use of the term “applied behavior analysis” and its related concepts continues to generate debate and confusion for practitioners and family members in the autism field. A general lack of understanding, or misunderstanding, of the science and practice of ABA is pervasive in the field and has contributed to an often contentious dialogue among stakeholders, as well as limited implementation in many public school settings. A review of the history of ABA and its application to individuals with ASD is provided, in addition to a discussion about practices that are/are not based on the science of ABA. Common myths related to ABA and ASD, as well as challenges practitioners face when implementing practices based on the science of ABA in public school settings are also described. The use of applied behavior analysis (ABA) with students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) is not a new concept, as many professionals working in the autism field state that they “do” ABA with their students/clients. Though the science of ABA has been in use for decades questions remain about what constitutes ABA, its efficacy, and its use with individuals on the autism spectrum. Critics of ABA have historically disputed the evidence of efficacy of ABA for reasons ranging from criticisms that it is too punishment-based, lacks generalizability across settings and contexts, and issues with study methods and design. Such criticisms are not without merit, as will be discussed in this paper. However, much criticism is based on broad misconceptions about what it means to “do” ABA today in public school settings. ABA is much more than “Table Time” or discrete trial training, and “time out” or punishment. Today’s ABA is based on a well-founded and researched science, uses positive reinforcement over punishment, seeks to establish a clear connection between treatment and outcome (e.g., functional relationship, discussed later in this paper), and is focused on generalization of socially important skills to the natural environment. This paper provides an overview of ABA. This overview lays the foundation of the science and provides a historical context. Next, strategies and interventions based on the science of ABA will be discussed, as well as some of the myths and misconceptions of ABA as it pertains to individuals with ASD. Finally, challenges in the implementation of ABA (e.g. personnel preparation, litigation, blended methodology) are presented. The purpose of this paper is to provide readers, both new and seasoned professionals in the field of ASD and ABA, a reference for the use of ABA techniques with students with ASD, and to provide clarity about what today’s ABA is, and is not, for individuals with ASD. Overview of Applied Behavior Analysis Applied behavior analysis was first defined by Baer, Wolf, and Risley in 1968 as “the process of applying sometimes tentative principles of behavior to the improvement of specific behaviors, and simultaneously evaluating whether or not any changes noted are indeed Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kara Hume, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, FPG Child Development Institute, 517 South Greensboro Street, Carrboro, NC 27510. Email: kara.hume@unc.edu Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2012, 47(1), 23–38 © Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities Today’s Applied Behavior Analysis / 23 attributed to the process of application” (p. 91). Using principles of behavior to shape, modify, or change behavior has a lengthy history in the field of special education, yet behavior modification alone does not qualify as ABA. Applied behavior analysis specifically includes the analysis of whether or not changes in behavior are caused by the behavioral modification techniques used, or whether there were other variables, or pure coincidence that leads to behavior change (Alberto & Troutman, 2009). In this way, the field has gone beyond training and moved to evaluation and prediction as well. In order to say with confidence that a particular intervention has led to a change in behavior, one must evaluate it according to specific criteria (e.g., against baseline) and determine whether or not it is likely that this behavior change would be seen again if the same intervention were to be used. This is known in the literature as establishing a functional relation between the behavior and the intervention, and is key to the analysis of behavior change (Kennedy, 2005).

Intervention Approaches Used for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder—Autism Toolkit

Few professionals working with children and families affected by autism spectrum disorders (ASD) would deny that behavioral intervention is the treatment of choice. Programs based in Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) methodology such as discrete trial instruction (DTI) and applied verbal behavior (AVB) remain popular interventions for children diagnosed with ASD. They remain popular to the extent that special education litigation has increasingly involved requests that school districts provide or reimburse parents for a program characterized by ABA. Several distinctions, important for school personnel and educational consultants alike, can be made between a these programs. These distinctions are provided along the following dimensions: curriculum, reinforcement and motivation, delivery of instruction, prompting and error correction, language acquisition, augmentative communication, and data collection. Key Words: autism, behavioral intervention, Discrete Trial Instruction, Applied Verbal Behavior. ********** Schreibman (1997) indicates that few professionals working with children and families affected by autism spectrum disorders (ASD) would deny that behavioral intervention is the treatment of choice. Behavioral treatment has been defined as synonymous with applied behavior analysis (ABA), and as the application of the principles of learning to human behavior for the resultant effect of improved socially significant behaviors (Schreibman, 1997). Despite some methodological criticisms of the research (Connor, 2003, Eikeseth, 2001, Gresham, Beebe-Frankenberger, & MacMillan, 1999, Gresham & MacMillan, 1997, Gresham & MacMillan, 1998), ABA-based early intervention is empirically supported in helping children with ASD to achieve significant gains (Herbert & Brandsman, 2002). Programs based on ABA methodology remain popular interventions for children diagnosed with ASD (Herbert & Brandsma, 2002, Lovaas, 1987, McEachin, Smith, & Lovass, 1993, Schreibman, 1997). Special-education litigation has increasingly involved requests that school districts provide or reimburse parents for a program characterized by ABA (Yell & Drasgow, 2000). For example, the New York State Guideline Technical Report for clinical practice of the assessment and treatment of ASD for children ages 0-3 years recommends the principles of ABA be included as an important programmatic element (NYDH, 1999). Given the increased demand for ABA methodology for preschool and school-aged children with ASD in school settings, it is necessary that teachers of special education and other school personnel understand the distinction between different types of programs that fall under the umbrella of ABA and what is implied when parents request discrete trial or applied verbal behavior programs. In their selective review of treatments for children with autism, Gresham, Beebe-Frankenberger, and MacMillan (1999) evaluated several programs categorized as comprehensive behavioral and educational treatment programs. These include, among others, the UCLA Young Autism Project (YAP), based on the work by O. Ivar Lovaas (1987); Treatment and Education of Autistic and Related Communication Handicapped Children (Project TEACCH), based on the work of Schopler and Reichler (1971); and Learning Experiences Alternative Program (LEAP), based on the work of Strain and others (1977) (Gresham, Beebe-Frankenberger, & MacMillan, 1999). Since the publication of the Gresham, Beebe-Frankenberger, and MacMillan article in 1999, additional approaches considered behavior analytic in nature have come to the forefront. These include Pivotal Response Training (PRT) (Koegel, Koegel, & Carter, 1999) and Applied Verbal Behavior (AVB) (Sundberg & Michael, 2001). For some educators, the distinction among ABA programs remains nebulous. The purpose of this paper is to distinguish between two popular approaches currently provided for early intervention and school-aged children in home- and school-based settings: Lovaas' Young Autism Project (YAP), more commonly referred to as Discrete Trial Instruction (DTI) or Discrete Trial Teaching (DTT), and B. …

For over 50 years, intervention methods informed by the principles of applied behavior analysis (ABA) have been empirically researched and clinically implemented for autistics/individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Despite the plethora of evidence for the effectiveness of ABA-based interventions, some autism rights and neurodiversity activists have expressed concerns with ABA-based interventions. Concerns have included discontent with historical events and possible harm from the procedures and goals targeted. The purpose of this manuscript is to examine some expressed concerns about ABA-based intervention and suggest productive ways of moving forward to provide the best outcomes for autistics/individuals diagnosed with ASD. The authors represent stakeholders from multiple sectors including board certified behavior analysts, licensed psychologists, parents, and autistics/individuals diagnosed with ASD.

Applied behavior analysis (ABA) is a scientific approach that applies principles of learning and motivation to assess, design, implement, and evaluate social and environmental modifications to produce meaningful changes in human behavior. It has been widely used in various settings, particularly in the treatment of individuals with autism spectrum disorders and other developmental disabilities. Recently, compassion has emerged as a topic of growing scientific interest within ABA. To improve socially relevant behaviors, it is essential to explore how behavior analysts can provide maximum support to clients and promote significant changes through compassionate care. Although compassion skills have been studied by ABA researchers, the literature still presents gaps in understanding how these skills can be effectively integrated into ABA practice. This study aimed to map, identify, and provide data available in the existing literature on compassion skills and applied behavior analysis. This scoping review will follow the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley with previously proposed refinements. The search strategy will use combinations of descriptors and their synonyms according to the Health Sciences Descriptors and MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms, using the PCC (population, concept, and context) mnemonic, combined with the Boolean operators AND Mesh OR. The electronic databases to be searched include Embase, Index Psicologia, Lilacs, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies published between 2020 and 2024 in English, Portuguese, and Spanish will be included. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts, and full texts, with a third reviewer resolving any disagreements. As this is a protocol, results are pending. The review will synthesize definitions of compassion in ABA, map compassionate skills, analyze existing interventions, and identify outcomes associated with compassionate ABA practice. This scoping review is expected to contribute to the evolution of ABA toward a more compassionate and holistic approach, potentially leading to improved outcomes for clients and practitioners. The findings may inform the development of compassion training programs and influence care policies in ABA. OSF Registries 10.17605/OSF.IO/F3A6H; https://osf.io/f3a6h. PRR1-10.2196/66399.

Positive behavior support (PBS) developed in the 1980s and 1990s as an approach to enhance quality of life and minimize challenging behavior (Carr et al., 2002). Founded in 1999, Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions publishes both conceptual and empirical articles on PBS using a variety of methodologies (e.g., Baker-Ericzen, Stahmer, & Burns, 2007; Harvey, Baker, Horner, & Blackford, 2003; Vaughn, White, Johnston, & Dunlap, 2005), though single-subject designs are very common. One feature of JPBI that distinguishes it from other behaviorally oriented journals, including Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, is that the vast majority of published studies are conducted in natural settings rather than in clinical settings. This is not to suggest that research in laboratories or clinical settings is not important or valued; rather, it reflects an emphasis within PBS on external validity and contextual fit of interventions. As noted by Johnston et al. (2006), PBS has been associated with a great deal of federal funding and has been written into policy at the federal level. For example, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 maintains provisions for behavioral interventions and supports for children with disabilities who display problem behavior. Some states have also adopted statutes prescribing PBS for persons with disabilities. Further, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) of the US Department of Education has dedicated considerable funding to support PBS intervention, training, and research. Importantly, these developments did not come about as a result of campaigning by researchers within PBS, but rather because consumers (e.g., educators and parents) informed policy makers that PBS was having an important and durable impact on the lives of children. The PBS Controversy In recent years, a debate has evolved about positive behavior support and its relation to applied behavior analysis. Origins of the debate may be traced to the position that PBS is a new science, evolved from, yet different than, applied behavior analysis (ABA) (Carr et al., 2002). Although advocates of this position acknowledge the central influence of ABA in the heritage of PBS (Dunlap, 2006), they argue that the combined elements of PBS comprise a fundamentally new science to reduce challenging behavior. In response, some behavior analysts have countered that PBS is not different from ABA (Carr & Sidener, 2002). Proponents of this view posit that the procedures of PBS are largely, if not entirely, drawn from ABA and that attempts to conceptualize PBS as a new science have potentially harmful ramifications for the field of ABA. Furthering this view, other behavior analysts have described PBS as a direct threat to ABA (Johnston et al., 2006; Mulick & Butler, 2005). Accordingly, they imply that the successful dissemination of PBS as a new science will result in consumers' rejection of ABA. Moreover, because many PBS practitioners lack formal training in ABA, they argue, PBS interventions may result in deleterious effects for consumers. Diverging views have sparked debate among behavior analysts about PBS and its relationship to ABA. Although little direct evidence has been offered to support the claim that PBS is harmful to ABA, it is not unreasonable for behavior analysts to have concerns given these issues. The purpose of this paper is to allay these concerns by providing one perspective on the relationship between PBS and ABA. Unique contributions of PBS to the field of ABA are offered in conjunction with suggestions of how practitioners of PBS and ABA may work together for mutual benefit. Are PBS and ABA Different? PBS is an application of behavior analysis, which focuses on the core components of PBS identified in the literature (Anderson & Freeman, 2000; Anderson & Kincaid, 2005; Carr et al., 2002; Horner et al. …

Objectives Interventions based on Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) are increasingly used for autistic children in China. However, there is limited knowledge about the attitudes of Chinese caregivers towards ABA-based interventions and their lived experiences. This study aims to preliminarily investigate caregiver experience and perceptions regarding ABA-based interventions through a phenomenological approach. Methods Eight Chinese caregivers of autistic children were interviewed to understand their attitudes towards and experiences of ABA-based interventions. Half of the caregivers’ autistic children were receiving ABA-based interventions, while the other half’s autistic children previously received ABA-based interventions. Results Five major themes were identified through analysis: 1) The beginning and termination of ABA-based interventions; 2) Mixed experiences of ABA-based interventions; 3) The high cost of ABA-based interventions; 4) The involvement of caregivers in ABA-based interventions; 5) Thoughts regarding ideal ABA-based interventions in future China. Both caregiver groups shared positive and negative experiences related to ABA-based interventions. Caregivers expressed concern regarding the quality, accessibility, and sustainability of ABA-based interventions in their communities and the country. Conclusions Implications for policymakers, service providers, and caregivers are discussed: 1) Enhancing the professional workforce for ABA-based interventions; 2) Empowering advocacy and navigating culture; 3) Optimizing the distribution of ABA resources in China; 4) Developing caregiver training and family-centered ABA-based interventions.

Programs based on applied behavior analysis (ABA) have become increasingly popular as interventions for childhood autism. A number of leading behavior analysts even have claimed that many children with autism can be cured through such programs and therefore strongly recommend ABA over alternative interventions. The extant research literature, however, does not support these claims. ABA programs for childhood autism are indeed promising, but exaggerated claims may undermine confidence in approach, and are misleading to families of autistic children and to other stakeholders. ********** Empiricism has always been one of key defining features of applied behavior analysis (ABA) (Cooper, Heron & Heward, 1987). Both theoretical and technological developments are closely tied to objective data (Zuriff, 1985). In keeping with high value placed on pragmatism, link between basic behavioral principles and technological developments that stem from these principles emphasized. Technological developments such as interventions for psychological disorders and behavioral problems are not relegated to an afterthought, but are central to entire enterprise. The recent movement toward empirically supported treatments (ESTs) in field of clinical psychology therefore represents nothing new to applied behavior analysts. Although debates are currently raging among clinical psychologists and other mental health professionals regarding relevance of outcome research to clinical practice, idea that interventions should be informed by data axiomatic to behavior analyst. Applied behavior analysts may join other empirically-minded professionals in quibbling over details (e.g., specific criteria that should be used to justify claims of empirical support for an intervention; cf. Herbert, 2000; Lohr, DeMaio, & McGlynn, in press), but idea that the data matter not in dispute. ABA AND CHILDHOOD AUTISM The conventional wisdom within field of ABA that one of most significant if not single most significant - empirically supported success story ABA-based early intervention for developmental disabilities, and childhood autism in particular. In fact, association of ABA with intervention programs for childhood autism has become so strong that Hayes (2001) recently warned that ABA is gradually becoming a subfield of developmental disabilities (p. 61). Indeed, Internet home page of Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies (www.behavior.org)prominently features ABA programs for autism. The premier ABA journal, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, frequently publishes articles on application of ABA for developmental disabilities. In a feature article on Autism, Newsweek magazine described ABA as the standard approach to intervention with autism (Cowley, July 31, 2000, p. 52). The ABC News program Nightline recently featured ABA for autism (March 9, 2001). The New York State Department of Health (1999) recently issued clinical practice guidelines for autism in which ABA recommended as a critical element of any intervention program for childhood autism. The astounding success of ABA early intervention programs for children with autism proclaimed not only in professional literature, but also in books and Internet sites targeted to parents and other stakeholders. These publications frequently announce that ABA programs can result in dramatic developmental gains for many autistic individuals. In fact, it claimed that many of these children can eventually function in normal education settings, and are indistinguishable from their normally developing peers. In other words, many can be cured of their disorder. Consider, for example, following passages gleaned from literature on ABA for autism: Several studies have now shown that one treatment approach--early, intensive instruction using methods of Applied Behavior Analysis--can result in dramatic improvements for children with autism: successful integration in regular schools for many, completely normal functioning for some (Green, 1996b, p. …

Objective To compare and analyze the short-term effect of play-based communication and behavior intervention (PCBI) and applied behavioral analysis (ABA) on the treatment of toddlers with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Methods Seventy-four ASD toddlers aged from 19 to 30 months were recruited in Nanjing Brain Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University from November 2017 to May 2018.The toddlers who participated in this study were randomly assigned into PCBI group and ABA group, then they were intervened weekly by PCBI or ABA for a total of 12 weeks.Portage Early Development Checklist and autism treatment evaluation checklist (ATEC) were used to estimate the toddlers′ developmental level and the treatment efficacy respectively.The t-test was used to reveal whether there was significant difference between the 2 groups before and after intervention. Results (1)Compared with the ABA group, there was a significant increase in cognitive scores (ΔPCBI=9.03 scores, ΔABA=4.27 scores, t=3.997) and a significant decrease in social behavior scores (ΔPCBI=8.87 scores, ΔABA=16.91 scores, t=-4.022) of the Portage Early Development Checklist after 12 weeks of intervention in the PCBI group, and there were statistically significant differences(all P 0.05). (2)Compared with the ABA group, after 12 weeks of PCBI intervention, the scores of social contact, perception, behavior of ATEC were decreased, but the difference was not significant (P>0.05); the total score of ATEC scale(ΔPCBI total=14.89 scores, ΔABA total=22.22 scores, t=2.209)and the scores of language subscale(ΔPCBI language=2.89 scores, ΔABA language=6.43 scores, t=2.515)were decreased significantly, and there were statistically significant differences (all P<0.05). Conclusions After 12 weeks of the very early intervention of PCBI, the ASD toddlers all improved in clinical symptoms and developmental level.Compared with ABA intervention, PCBI very early intervention with parental guidance was comparable in short term efficacy, and PCBI was not taking up as much medical rehabilitation resources as ABA. Key words: Autism spectrum disorder; Toddler; Very early intervention; Play-based communication behavior intervention; Efficacy evaluation

Autism spectrum disorder is a developmental disability affecting individuals across their entire lifespan. Autistic individuals have differences from nonautistic people (sometimes called allistic or neurotypical people) in social skills, communication, and atypical interests and/or repetitive behaviors. Applied behavior analysis is one of the first and most common interventions recommended for autistic children. However, autistic individuals argue that applied behavior analysis damages their mental health and treats them as though they are a problem to be fixed. This study examined the experiences of seven autistic individuals who received applied behavior analysis interventions as children to understand what autistic adults think about their applied behavior analysis interventions, how they feel about the applied behavior analysis interventions they received, and what recommendations autistic adults have for the future of applied behavior analysis. The findings include: Autistic adults remember traumatic events from applied behavior analysis, do not believe that they should be made to behave like their peers, gained some benefits but suffered significant negative long-term consequences, believe that applied behavior analysis is an unethical intervention, and recommend that applied behavior analysis practitioners listen to autistic people and consider using interventions in place of applied behavior analysis.

Challenges for Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Research in the Era of COVID-19.

The current COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented changes in how Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) services are provided to students/clients with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), and scant literature is available from which to determine the best course of action for providing safe services during a pandemic. The research question for this study is: What is the essence of experiences of parents, teachers, and Board-Certified Behavior Analysts of students with ASD who are now receiving ABA services remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic school closures? Generic qualitative design was used to analyze the responses of nine participants who are either Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBAs) or Registered Behavior Technicians (RBTs). Findings indicate that service providers are concerned about the effectiveness of telehealth services, do not believe that safety is always a priority for in person services, and that students/clients are struggling to find success amid the near-constant changes in service delivery brought about by the pandemic. Findings indicate that BCBAs and RBTs working with students with ASD are concerned about the negative outcomes for students in relation to changes in service delivery, are not comfortable with the level of risk to their own health and safety in order to provide services, and that telehealth options for ABA services have pros and cons that are difficult to weigh when determining how best to provide services during a pandemic.

There have been many diverse and complex treatments (Napolitano et al. 2010; Sancho et al. 2010) developed in order to target improving the quality of lives of individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). By implementing efficient interventions across a variety of environments and people with whom the individual comes into contact with on a consistent basis, the symptoms to this neurological disorder may be minimized (Meyers and Johnson 2007). Therefore, identifying, developing, and applying such treatments would be an essential process for a teacher to conduct when instructing children diagnosed with a form of autism since a considerable amount of a child’s time is spent within a school setting. However, since there is wide range of conflicting research available regarding what methods should be used and what factors should be taken into consideration (Rogers and Vismara 2008) when teaching students with autism, educators may require input regarding what particular scientific and evidence based practices should be utilized based on their reported history of effectiveness. (Ascroft et al. 2010) attempt to provide one such solution to this issue for teachers when they discuss academic, social, and behavioral interventions using practices of applied behavior analysis (ABA) in Success Strategies for Teaching Kids with Autism. The content presented throughout the book first serves to advocate practices of ABA when working with children with an ASD in a classroom. Ashcroft et al. (2010) start building their defense as to why integrating ABA in educational programing should be a necessary component for teachers working with children diagnosed with an ASD. While chapter 1 provides an overview of the characteristics, symptoms, and possible causes associated with the various forms of autism spectrum disorders, chapter 2 establishes a basic foundation for the inclusion of ABA in classroom settings as the authors cite federal laws and a variety of other sources (New York State Department of Health, Early Intervention Program 1999) to support their claims. Chapter 3 is dedicated to describing the science of applied behavior analysis and to provide common terminology and examples to behavioral principles that could increase or decrease specific behavior. The terms explained by the authors are basic components that anyone implementing ABA interventions should be fluent with. However, caution should be noted as the wording may not have been handled accurately in a several instances when the authors try to describe a few of the terms when offering readers with examples and ‘tips.’ After several of the principles of ABA are outlined, the authors offer an array of approaches to implementing behavioral procedures within a classroom environment in chapter 4. Here, the authors put forth the necessary effort at indicating the broad range of means in which ABA may be employed across the many methods in which a child may learn. The authors make respectable attempts at describing these somewhat complicated procedures using practices of ABA for the layperson. However, if an educator were eager to implement these strategies within their own classroom, they would be recommended to seek out further literature in order to gain more knowledge regarding the development of these interventions than what was presented throughout this chapter to better ensure the strategies success when implemented. As it relates to chapter 5, Ascroft et al. (2010) noted the importance of conducting comprehensive ABA based J. B. Smith (&) Leadership Department, University of Memphis, 1437 Dexter Lake Drive, Apt. 301, Cordova, Memphis, TN 38016, USA e-mail: BrianSmithBCBA@gmail.com