American Academy of Pediatrics - Management of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders 2007
MADSEC (Maine) Autism Task Force Report 2000 (rev ed)
US Surgeon General 1999
NY State Dept of Health 2005 (rev ed)
This is what the AAP and MADSEC reports stated:
American Academy of Pediatrics (2007):
The effectiveness of ABA-based intervention in ASDs has been well documented through 5 decades of research by using single-subject methodology21,25,27,28 and in controlled studies of comprehensive early intensive behavioral intervention programs in university and community settings.29–40 Children who receive early intensive behavioral treatment have been shown to make substantial, sustained gains in IQ, language, academic performance, and adaptive behavior as well as some measures of social behavior, and their outcomes have been significantly better than those of children in control groups.31–40
MADSEC Autism Task Force Report (2000):
Over the past 30 years, several thousand published research studies have documented the effectiveness of ABA across a wide range of:
• populations (children and adults with mental illness, developmental disabilities and
• interventionists (parents, teachers and staff)
• settings (schools, homes, institutions, group homes, hospitals and business offices), and
• behaviors (language; social, academic, leisure and functional life skills; aggression, selfinjury,
oppositional and stereotyped behaviors)
The effectiveness of ABA-based interventions with persons with autism is well documented, with current research replicating already-proven methods and further developing the field.
Documentation of the efficacy of ABA-based interventions with persons with autism emerged in the 1960s, with comprehensive evaluations beginning in the early 1970s. Hingtgen & Bryson (1972) reviewed over 400 research articles pertinent to the field of autism that were published between 1964 and 1970. They concluded that behaviorally-based interventions demonstrated the most consistent results. In a follow-up study, DeMeyer, Hingtgen & Jackson (1981) reviewed over 1,100 additional studies that appeared in the 1970s. They examined studies that included behaviorally-based interventions as well as interventions based upon a wide range of theoretical foundations. Following a comprehensive review of these studies, DeMeyer, Hingtgen & Jackson (1982) concluded “. . .the overwhelming evidence strongly suggest that the treatment of choice for maximal expansion of the autistic child’s behavioral repertoire is a systematic behavioral education program, involving as many child contact hours as possible, and using therapists (including parents) who have been trained in the behavioral techniques” (p.435).
Support of the consistent effectiveness and broad-based application of ABA methods with persons with autism is found in hundreds of additional published reports. [highlighting added HL Doherty]
Baglio, Benavidiz, Compton, et al (1996) reviewed 251 studies from 1980 to 1995 that reported on the efficacy of behaviorally-based interventions with persons with autism. Baglio, et al (1996) concluded that since 1980, research on behavioral treatment of autistic children has become increasingly sophisticated and encompassing, and that interventions based upon ABA have consistentlyresulted in positive behavioral outcomes. In their review, categories of target behaviors included aberrant behaviors (ie self injury, aggression), language (ie receptive and expressive skills, augmentative communication), daily living skills (self-care, domestic skills), community living skills (vocational, public transportation and shopping skills), academics (reading, math, spelling, written language), and social skills (reciprocal social interactions, age-appropriate social skills).
In 1987, Lovaas published his report of research conducted with 38 autistic children using methods of applied behavior analysis 40 hours per week. Treatment occurred in the home and school setting. After the first two years, some of the children in the treatment group were able to enter kindergarten with assistance of only 10 hours of discrete trial training per week, and required only minimal assistance while completing first grade. Others, those who did not progress to independent school functioning early in treatment, continued in 40 hours per week of treatment for up to 6 years. All of the children in the study were re-evaluated between the ages of six and seven by independent evaluators who were blind as to whether the child had been in the treatment or control groups. There were several significant findings:
1) In the treatment group, 47% passed “normal” first grade and scored average or above on IQ
tests. Of the control groups, only one child had a normal first grade placement and average
2) Eight of the remaining children in the treatment group were successful in a language
disordered classroom and scored a mean IQ of 70 (range = 56-95). Of the control groups,
18 students were in a language disordered class (mean IQ = 70).
3) Two students in the treatment group were in a class for autistic or retarded children and
scored in the profound MR range. By comparison, 21 of the control students were in
autistic/MR classes, with a mean IQ of 40.
4) In contrast to the treatment group which showed significant gains in tested IQ, the control
groups’ mean IQ did not improve. The mean post-treatment IQ was 83.3 for the treatment
group, while only 53.3 for the control groups.
In 1993, McEachin, et al investigated the nine students who achieved the best
outcomes in the 1987 Lovaas study. After a thorough evaluation of adaptive functioning, IQ and personality conducted by professionals blind as to the child’s treatment status, evaluators could not distinguish treatment subjects from those who were not. Subsequent to the work of Lovaas and his associates, a number of investigators have
addressed outcomes from intensive intervention programs for children with autism. For example, the May Institute reported outcomes on 14 children with autism who received 15 - 20 hours of discrete trial training (Anderson, et al, 1987). While results were not as striking as those reported by Lovaas, significant gains were reported which exceeded those obtained in more traditional treatment paradigms. Similarly, Sheinkopf and Siegel (1998) have recently reported on interventions based upon discrete trial training which resulted in significant gains in the treated children’s’ IQ, as well as a reduction in the symptoms of autism. It should be noted that subjects in the May and Sheinkopf and Siegel studies were given a far less intense program than those of the Lovaas study, which may have implications regarding the impact of intensity on the effectiveness of treatment....
There is a wealth of validated and peer-reviewed studies supporting the efficacy of ABA
methods to improve and sustain socially significant behaviors in every domain, in individuals
with autism. Importantly, results reported include “meaningful” outcomes such as increased
social skills, communication skills academic performance, and overall cognitive functioning.
These reflect clinically-significant quality of life improvements. While studies varied as to the
magnitude of gains, all have demonstrated long term retention of gains made.
Other major contributions of ABA to the education and treatment of individuals with autism
• a large number of empirically-based systematic instruction methods that lead to the
acquisition of skills, and to the decrease/elimination of aberrant behaviors;
• a technology for systematically evaluating the efficacy of interventions intended to affect
individual learning and behavior; and
• substantial cost/benefit.
Over 30 years of rigorous research and peer review of applied behavior analysis’ effectiveness for individuals with autism demonstrate ABA has been objectively substantiated as effective based upon the scope and quality of science. [highlighting added - HLD]