Posts

The following articles cover issues important to parents of children with special behavioral and learning needs. Hopefully, these articles offer an unbiased point of view that helps you evaluate what you might need or want to know in order to help your child. The cover issues regarding behavior and parenting techniques, and finding the right kind of school or home program for your child.

David Sponder, L.E.P., BCBA, Floortime C3c
Executive Director, Sponderworks Children’s Services

Behavior

Why Does My Child Act This Way – How Loving and Capable Parents can have Children with Behaviors Resembling Autism or Attachment Dysfunction

Encouraging Thinking and Cooperation, Reducing Oppositional Behavior

Parenting Techniques

Checklist for Guides using “Child-Lead” teaching techniques

Guided Participation: A brief definition and what it means to be a “Guide”

The Therapeutic Pause Technique for Teaching New Skills and Responsible Behavior

Prompting – Pros, Cons, and Otherwise

Language Techniques Used at Sponderworks: Techniques for Atypical Language Learners and Children with Autism and other Disorders of Relating and Communicating

Declarative Language Stimulation, a powerful technique for getting more communication, sharing, and cooperation

Teaching Logical Thinking by Challenging: Tools from Systems Theory: “Violating Expectations” and the “Therapeutic Pause”

Techniques for Increasing Nonverbal Intelligence, Thinking, Initiation and Cooperation while Reducing Prompt Dependence at the same time

Dealing with Behavioral Challenges

The Therapeutic Pause Technique for Teaching Cooperative Behavior and Independent Thinking

Dealing with Attention Seeking and Sibling Rivalry in a Relationship-based Way

Dealing with Explosive Behavior

Finding a Program that is Right for Your Child

Characteristics of a Home Program Focused on Quality of Life

Characteristics of a School Program Focused on Quality of Life

Map of a Consultation Model: View from a Parent and a Professional

Brazelton and Greenspan’s Irreducible Needs of Children

The Autism Wars, “Evidence Basis” and ABA as both an Open System and a Bottom Line for Judgment of Effectiveness

An ABA Analysis of Floortime and Guided Participation Teaching

Therapist/Early Intervention Specialist Job Description

• Implement Treatment Plans: The Early Intervention Therapist works directly with children with special needs according to treatment plans and specifications provided by senior SCS Personnel and Clinical Case Supervisors.  The Therapist attends clinics and treatment meetings where he or she provides input into the development of treatment plans.
• Track Progress: The Early Intervention Therapist keeps clinic notes and uses behavioral tracking forms to monitor progress.
• Coach Parents: The Early Intervention Therapist coaches parents in the implementation of treatment plans.  He or she also keeps track of parents’ progress on parent education goals.
• Provide Clinical Feedback to the Treatment Team: Therapists meet with the Clinical Case Supervisor and/or Psychologist twice monthly to provide feedback on treatment progress and needs
  
• Parent Education: Help Parents and/or professional staff such as Teachers and Paraeducators (Stakeholders) understand the behaviors of concern in the contexts of their environments and the child/Student’s development and relationship capacities
• Collaborate with Stakeholders in developing appropriate responses and teaching techniques; ability to use Active Listening techniques and to build a trusting and respectful relationship with parents
• Help Stakeholders learn systems for understanding their child or Student’s behavior and development so that they can do so on their own after brief treatment is completed
• Demonstrate techniques if necessary (the emphasis is mainly on Stakeholder Coaching however, rather than treating behavior directly)
• Assess and Monitor progress of behavior and teach Stakeholders how to do it
• Complete Quarterly Reports of Progress and Recommendations

Qualifications

• Bachelor’s Degree (minimum) in Behavioral Science, Psychology, Education, Child Development or related fields; Master’s Degree preferred and/or
• One year (minimum) experience with the implementation of behavioral (ABA) or Relationship-based ABA (RDI; DIR/Floortime) treatment plans
• Personal experience as a parent of a child with Special Needs
• Proficiency in at least one of the major evidence-based ABA or Relationship-Based techniques; ability to explain basic principles and describe/implement basic techniques with children
• Prefer extensive knowledge of child development and parenting

© David Sponder, L.E.P., BCBA, DIR/Floortime Certified C2
Executive Director, Sponderworks Childrens’ Services

Criticism of the Current State of the Field and the Advice Given to Parents

There is a lot of confusion among parents regarding selection of a program that is right for their family, especially when they are told that ABA is the only research proven method for intervention.  First of all, it’s misleading and it points up a problem with how self-referenced the field of ABA can be.  The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA), the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (JAEB) and other journals published by behavior analysts tend to lack references to sciences that provide the theoretical and research support for the use of developmental, relationship-based methods or any methods referencing typical development (developmental psychopathology based) or; neurodevelopmental methods.

The field of ABA could be more of an open system, and there is increasing evidence that it is indeed becoming more open to the similarities and complements of other methods and theories.  But it has a long way to go, guidelines currently in use have had a stagnating effect on innovation and the average parent is unlikely to meet an unbiased, widely experienced person (i.e. in more than one method or system of intervention).  The field as a whole is much too dismissive of other theories of behavior and intervention.  Subsequently there is an embarrassing and appalling lack of understanding of natural childhood development (especially emotional development) used in the behavioral treatment of developmental disorders.  We endorse the basic principle of Developmental Psychopathology: that to understand abnormal development and behavior, one must first understand normal development.  We also believe in Edward O. Wilson’s (who pioneered the field of Social Biology) ideal of “conscilience” among scientific disciplines.  Essentially, conscilience occurs when various and seemingly unrelated fields (e.g. systems theory and behavior; genetics and behavior, etc.) find common underlying truths.

As a result, the current state of the field of FAB is remarkably uncsonscilient with other fields outside of behaviorism, therefore, it is fair to ask how much a professional knows about what he or she appears to reject.  (For an excellent critique along these lines, I refer you to “Shortcomings of Functional Behavioral Assessment; Functional Behavioral Assessment: Deeper Understanding of Behavioral Handicaps or Trojan Horse? by John Stewart, NCSP)

Here again, I cite the Autism Society of America’s policy on treatment options:

Our prescription based approach is meant to deal with the problem of no single program fulfilling every need, but it takes a whole lot of extra effort to develop expertise in both behavioral and developmental methods and few people do it.  People can advise you about what they know, but unless they have really studied and implemented a program, they have no basis for advising you against it.  Ironically, newer forms of ABAsuch as pivotal response therapy feature principles and methods developed and tested long ago by Developmentalists, such as following a child’s lead and developing pivotal responses.  And in the most cited research articles and books about the newer methods, there are few if any references to the developmental literature or researchers that first tested the methods.

What is a Functional Analysis of Behavior

The whole debate becomes a little ridiculous when you take a closer look at the guiding principles of ABA.  This is because any therapy that uses interaction and modification of the environment to promote developmental change or behavioral improvement can be analyzed functionally, and can be shown to follow ABA principles if the program is well designed and understood by the interventionist.  Below, I will offer a Functional Analysis of interaction principles used in the various methodologies.  But first, it would be helpful to understand what a Functional Assessment/Analysis of Behavior (FAB) is.  I will try to keep this non-technical.

The primary purpose, and therefore, one of the optimal outcomes of a FAB is the determination of the motivation of a specific behavior or class of behaviors (different forms of behavior that are similar in their relationship to the motivation).  These motivations are called “functions of behavior,” the meat of functional analysis.  At SCS, we further analyze functions in terms of ‘functions of’ (unintended or indirect results of behavior: such as losing friends), and ‘functions for’ (behaviors that can be considered intentional – even if it is undesirable).

Prior to developing a hypothesis about the reasons behind a behavior, one must observe and define in measurable terms what that behavior actually is.  For instance, it is easy to observe and measure the number of times a child leaves his seat or completes work or says a 3 word sentence.  But describing a behavior as a “bad attitude” or “angry behaviors” can be a source of confusion among different observers, and failure in intervention.  The important thing in this defining or “operationalizing” a behavior is that once defined, different observers can agree that they are measuring the same phenomenon.  This is called, “inter-observer agreement,” which provides the test of how well the behavior has been defined.

Since no one can ever determine with complete accuracy what motivation seems to be operating at any given time, the determination will always remain a “hypothesis of the function of the behavior.”  Hypotheses will always range from less to more accurate, so it is vital to consider as many forms of relevant information as necessary (always including the history of the individual and the pattern of the behavior, as well as environmental, health and developmental data.

Before fully engaging in teaching replacement behaviors, some effort should be made to test the analyst’s hypotheses (hypothesis testing).  This describes the process of testing out different ways to elicit the behavior by changing aspects of the environment.  Responses to various forms of intervention can also be tested preliminarily by a similar process.

Once a hypothesis of the ‘function(s)’ of the behavior is done, the analyst looks for “replacement behaviors” for the behaviors the individual is currently using.  So if a child engages in a behavior such as a tantrum, and the hypothesis is that the tantrums are primarily used by the individual as a means to avoid certain demands, then the analyst can propose possible and more satisfactory behaviors to meet that function, or make modifications to the environment that allow the individual to solve the prom or conflict in other ways (e.g. ask for a break; engage in verbal problem-solving/conflict resolution, etc.).  The analyst also has the responsibility of proposing teaching procedures to accomplish the learning of replacement behaviors, as well as ways to ensure the individual can use them consistently when needed.

Equally important is the measurement of behavior change following intervention.  It is well known that an individual can do the same thing for a variety of reasons, depending on the context perhaps (single form: various functions), and conversely, an individual can do a variety of things for the same reason (various forms: single function).  The analysts job is to make sense of this and to develop procedures that work.  If this is done properly, it is often a complicated thing to do – as people and their behaviors can be very complex.

The basic data points of functional analyses are the stimuli that elicit responses (antecedents), the responses themselves (behaviors), and the effects the behaviors produce in the individual or the environment or both (consequences) or (ABC).  Intervention might center on modifying the antecedents or the consequences or both, and the measurement of success or failure is the change in behavior that results from such manipulation of the environment.

This functional unit of analysis: antecedent ® behavior ® consequence is rarely enough, because the results of behavior produce new stimuli that the environment responds to, and the individual responds to the responses of the environment in continuous fashion.  Therefore, behavioral interaction with the environment should be seen as dynamic.  A simple ABC is usually overly static to analyze what is essentially a dynamic process.  Unfortunately, systems theory has only recently even been discussed in FAB, and has not become common in FABs performed by behaviorists.

Consistently in the behavioral literature, the following motivations are identified almost to the exclusion of all others:

• behavior that elicits attention or obtains access to desired events (e.g., access to toys, desired activities);
• behavior that enables the person to avoid or escape demands or other unwanted events/activities, and;
• behavior that occurs because of its sensory consequences (relieves pain, feels good, etc.).

We note here that the primary driving force in the evolutionary expansion of the human brain occurred due to environmental pressure to engage in complex social relationships.  Traditional behaviorists typically place behaviors in one of the three functions above, and many believe that any behavior can be subsumed under one of these functions.  In light of the primary function of social intelligence in human development and the brain, these functions are limited to instrumental interactions among people, not interpersonal or intersubjective motivations.  This has led to interventions devoid of the tools of social intelligence – dynamic appraisal and dynamic responding.  That is why after years of non-developmental intervention, many individuals merely become more knowledgeable individuals with still-disabling autism, as the core [read:] emotional deficits of autism remain unremediated.

Despite my serious criticism of the stagnant state of the field in which I work and the collective hubris of many that call themselves “behaviorists,” a proper Functional Analysis (i.e. informed by developmental data and the sciences related to human neurological, social and emotional development) of developmental interventions can show the actual conscilience of the various behavioral and developmental interventions.

Functional Analysis of Methods Used in Autism Treatment, including “Developmental” Methods

DTT: Discrete Trial Training features the most basic form of functional analysis – the linear relationship between antecedents, behaviors, and consequences.  Using highly controlled presentations, the ABC elements are laid bare and the results are easily measured.  This is the true reason it is the most widely used intervention, not it’s validity as an intervention.  Because of the training method, the stimuli produce responses mainly from long term memory and do not activate the emotional brain in a typical way.  Dynamic social responses rely heavily on limbic influence on feelings, motivations, and behavior, and these are systematically ignored when behaviors are taught in a static (rehearsed and drilled) fashion.  No amount of “generalization training” addresses the fact that dynamic function in the environment is highly predicated on activation of the emotional brain, and the result of this therapy when used alone is typically a smarter autistic who is as unable to function in a truly dynamic social environment as ever.

Floortime: Floortime is the most psychodynamic of the research-based interventions for autism.  By design, the adult follows the child’s lead in the early stages of intervention.  But the point is to engage the child in a co-regulated interaction where each partner’s behavior stimulates congruent responses from the other – in continuous fashion.  Therefore, a 2 minute interaction could involve dozens of continual stimuli, responses, and consequences (called “circles of communication”).

The interventionist sees the child’s behavior as the antecedent, because the focus of intervention is to create a connection between affect (feelings, intent; motivation, and the outward expression of these as observed in emotional and symbolic communications emanating from the partners) and motor planning (formulating responses related to intent).  The adult responds by facilitating the child’s behaviors related to the [hypothesized] intent of the child, and/or providing challenges (stimuli in which the child is to formulate a response) that result in developmental growth.  The Therapist looks for opportunities (again the child’s behavior) to create extended, intersubjective responding.

It is this intersubjective component that annoys behaviorists the most, because it makes assumptions about the inner workings of another person’s mind.  But this is what we do constantly in human interaction – we are always sussing out the motivations and intentions of our social partners.  People who cannot do it are well – autistic, so Floortime addresses the core deficits of autism.

And what is a functional hypothesis of behavior anyway?  It seems that here, the only difference between the way a Floortimer and a Behaviorist analyzes behaviors is that the Floortimer will acknowledge the intersubjective nature of human interaction and be unafraid of analyzing it.  He or she sees emotion signaling as a valid domain of expressive behavior, and the ability to read emotion signaling in a normal way as a valid domain of receptive knowledge – as demonstrated by the congruence (or lack of it) in the child’s response.

In Floortime, the interventionist has to formulate hypotheses on the fly, because a major emphasis is on fluid and spontaneous responding.  The hypotheses are continually evaluated in terms of the child’s responses.  Because the interventionist must respond fluidly to the child’s behaviors – there is no time to stop the interaction to take data.  This really sets it apart from PRT, a behavioral form of child-led intervention, and unfortunately has become a source of criticism from behaviorists.  This is totally unfair because developmentalists have used video/film for this purpose for more than 40 years.  This allows functional analysis at the micro and macro levels.

One difference in the method is that the interventionist is looking for a congruent response, one that facilitates the ongoing interaction.  The interventionist is less concerned about eliciting any specific or delimited form of behavior than a behaviorist might be.  If a child produces a response that at the moment is not consistent or fully intentional on the part of the child, the interventionist responds in ways that “shape” more efficient responses – which is exactly the same thing as the behaviorist principle of behavioral shaping.   The Floortimer always has the response (skill) they would like to elicit in mind – the “behavior” or the ‘B’ in FAB, and develops a working knowledge of how to consequate (respond to the behavior of) the child.  This consequation (a behavioral term), when it is sensitive to the child’s emotion signals is referred to as attunement.  The more attuned the interventionist, the more the child responds and the more “material” is presented by the child to the interventionist (opportunities) for behavioral shaping (consequation with the intent of forming specific forms of behavior).

Real Floortimers must be well versed in emotional development and be able to recognize emotion signals emanating from the child.  They must know the order of development of these signals, which provides the bulk of behavioral goals for the child.  If these behaviors are taught out of order, the brain recruits cognitive systems designed for stepwise thinking, not intersubjective responding.  Emotional or limbic parts of the brain are designed for this and respond most efficiently to emotional input (stimuli).

Without being able to recognize emotion signals, we could not engage in warm, dynamic, intersubjective and spontaneous social interaction – so it is reasonable to be able to teach children to respond to such signals by systematically exposing the children to and helping them respond to them.  Most emotion signals are nonverbal, so there is a great deal of emphasis on providing emotion signals (stimuli) for the child to respond to.

A criticism I have along with many others of Floortime in its purist forms is that in a given period of time, you may not have as many opportunities to work on the skills you want.  Oh, there are always opportunities for teaching, but you may or may not get the opportunity to work on the skill you intended.  In theory, Floortimers will tell you that they will respond and shape any behavior that is developmentally appropriate for the stage of development in which the child functions, and Greenspan and Wieder have done a thorough job of delineating these behaviors by stage – as observed from extensive research into neurotypical infant and child development.

But we often prefer a little more structure than simply following a child’s lead anywhere.  When we do it, we will set up the environment to promote opportunities – which often involves not using toys or objects to support interaction.

Pivotal Response Training: This is another form of child-led method, developed by disciples of Lovaas that found that DTT relied too heavily on manipulative, unnatural forms of motivating the child.  “Motivation” is considered a foundational, pivotal response underlying all others.  Therefore, they look for ways to produce natural motivation from the child.  Too bad that emotion signals and emotion-sharing are not identified as stimuli for the child to respond (although so-called “social reinforcement” such as praise can, but doesn’t necessarily or always result in emotion-sharing).  Access to essentially non-social stimuli constitutes the motivating consequence for social behaviors, which can reinforce the autistic child’s natural bias towards instrumental (and not intersubjective) forms of motivation.  There is only the hope that learning to interact in such a way will lead to the child developing a taste for emotion sharing, but there is no systematic way identified in the method to elicit the child to reference other people’s affective signals or to be able to read the non-verbal ones.

In the emotion development-informed methods such as Floortime or RDI, emotion-sharing is used as the main “reinforcer” – not mere access to a toy or activity the child likes.  Granting access to toys or activities the child already likes as a “reinforcer” can exacerbate the self-referenced nature of the individual with ASD, and turn the relationship into a series of instrumental contracts with the child.  We do not want children to evaluate their own behavior in terms of obtaining access to things; we want them to evaluate their behavior in terms of the emotional and social responses of others – so we would never develop such contractual relationships with the child.  True, the social/emotional forms of feedback are contingent upon responses from the child, which conforms to traditional notions of contingency in functional analysis, but they are not related at all to the child’s access to things (non-social objects).  Should your motivation come from wanting to be with me – or to get to your video game?  If it’s the former, you’re normal.  If the latter – you remain socially and emotionally impaired.

We use PRT sometimes to enhance how children play with toys – but not people.  If we want to teach social/emotion interaction skills (in other words – remediate the core deficit underlying all the other core deficits of autism), we modify PRT to provide emotion signals as “reinforcers” for the child.  This will not work without first facilitating emotion-sharing without physical objects involved.

Guided Participation Teaching (GPT): An oversimplified analogy for GPT might be: “behavioral methods: emotional goals.” Techniques such as Stop the Action are really forms of differential reinforcement and behavioral shaping.

Note: Guided Participation Teaching is a concept identified by Russian Psychologist Lev Vygotsky and further elaborated on by Anthropologist Barbara Rogoff.  Psychologists, Steven Gutstein and Rachelle Sheely adapted many of the principles of GPT for autism in their method known as Relationship Development Intervention or RDI.™  I was certified in the RDI method from 2004 to 2012, choosing to give up the certification voluntarily and in good standing, in order to pursue Floortime Advanced Certification.

Based on work on systems and human behavior by Alan Fogel, a change in the ongoing regulatory pattern of an interaction is considered the antecedent in which a child is to respond.  In this respect, it is the same as Floortime, except that the adult structures and teaches with specificity the initial regulatory pattern.  The Guided Participation teacher is looking for specific and delimited skills one at a time as the behaviorist does, but the difference again is the focus on emotion reading and signaling skills and the emphasis on the proper neurologically based emotional developmental sequence of skills instruction.

We’ve done DTT by using emotion signals exclusively for feedback to the child.  We’ve done GPT in situations where what we want to teach is how to use an object or perform an instrumental skill such as getting dressed.  We’ve used Floortime to make anything we do fun, so we can get kids to want to wash their hands and brush their teach from the foundations built from intersubjective connecting with the child.  And we the Stop the Action technique to deal with inappropriate behavior.

This is what is possible when you can truly find the conscilience among the methods.  So if a professional tells you their method is incompatible with the any of the others you might want for your child, you now know better.  Maybe they should read this.  And you should look for professionals who are in a position to evaluate therapies objectively – not out of bias or ignorance.

• Our Philosophy and Guiding Principles Regarding ABA and Functional Analysis
• How We Develop Programs at SCS
• Criticism of Functional Analysis of Behavior
• ABA Concepts
• Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention (EIBI)
• Is ABA the ‘Only’ Way?
• ABA Jobs at SCS

Basic Tenets of the SCS Philosophy on the Functional Analysis of Behavior

The field of ABA demands a scientific approach, but we never forget that we’re there for a person and a family – not just to change behaviors and teach skills.  We are proud of the fact that we can use the scientific standards of ABA to offer developmentally appropriate, relationship-oriented services that focus on Quality of Life…    Read More…

Related Articles

Quality of Life as a Foundational and Guiding Principle of Programming 

In this article, we explain what we mean when we talk about “Quality of Life” and how we can apply that standard in every decision we make together…   Read More…

Characteristics of a Home Program Focused on Quality of Life

Since what constitutes “Quality of Life” is different for every person, and that it changes throughout the lifespan for each person, how do you set standards; how do you define and measure it?   Read More…

Characteristics of a School Program Focused on Quality of Life

A focus on Quality should not come at any cost to academic standards.  This article explains what a school program based on Quality of Life is and how one can be developed for any child…   Read More…

Citizenship as a Measure of One’s Quality of Life

We use a special common sense definition of “Citizenship” as a primary means of evaluating whether our program is indeed improving a person’s Quality of Life.  This article can help you evaluate your program…   Read More…

The Autism Wars, “Evidence Basis” and ABA as both an Open System and a Bottom Line for Judgment of Effectiveness

People with autism make an extremely diverse a group.  The saying goes, if you’ve met one person with autism, you’ve met one person with autism.  Which type of therapy is right for your family?  The answers parents get from the professional community is usually more bias than fact.  This article will help you filter through what you are likely to or already have been told…  Read More…

How We Develop Programs at SCS

Assessment

While we ultimately want to know why behavior occurs, we understand that people respond to their perception of reality rather than reality itself.  We have a very unique way of assessing behavior that meets the standards of reliability and verification that ABA demands, but is also powerful enough to consider a person’s behavior relates to their unique experience of the world…   Read More…

Early Intervention

There is wide range of choices available for deciding how to apply ABA in early intervention.  There is also a wide range of choices for combining developmental and ABA techniques.  Any methodology or individual technique, whether it claims to be “ABA” or not, can be evaluated using ABA standards of validity (“Applied”), reliability (“Behavioral”) and verification (“Analytical”).

How We Develop Programs for Accelerating Development

It’s way more than ABA…  Read More…

How We Develop Programs: Program “Prescription“

You probably found out that for many professionals, “ABA” really means “one way of doing things.”  That is not ABA.  Here, we describe how we use other, very important scientific disciplines along with ABA to develop a unique program “prescription” for your child.   Read More…

How We Develop Goals for Programming: Goals v. Objectives

This article is a bit technical, meant for students of ABA and Functional Analysis, Therapists, Consultants, Teachers and other professionals in the field.  It is about how to properly develop, measure and evaluate progress on goals for developmental/behavioral change. 

Parents may want to know whether the goals and objectives in their child’s IEP or program plan are properly written…   Read More…

ABA Concepts

Behavioral science and behavioral psychology began in laboratories, always using tightly controlled research experiments and animals as research subjects.  Much was learned about how behavior works in all species from these experiments.  However, what was possible in terms of control and freedom to use experimental techniques in the laboratory was not possible or desirable with people or in social settings.

Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) refers to the use of principles derived from laboratories of TEAB to the real world of homes, schools, classrooms and other areas of real life.  Since it’s advent in the 1950’s and 60’s (and a seminal paper that officially started the field [and Journal -] of ABA in 1968), new methods and adaptations had to be developed from the original material discovered in laboratories.  A whole different set of realities, ethics, emphases and procedures had to evolve that were not only “socially important” (an essential tenet of ABA, but not TEAB), but viable and practical in public settings.

In the laboratory, control over the elements was paramount, so a primary emphasis was on the isolation of the specific elements involved in change and the relationships between the changes made and the results obtained.  Such precision may not be possible or even desirable in the real world.  There is often a recognized trade-off between what is the most socially important and useful, and what is the most precise.

Because laboratory conditions may not available, or they may even be objectionable if used on people in a social setting, the ABA professional looks for [or invents] other ways of analyzing the variables to maximize certainty and predictability of outcomes.  For instance, in the real world, one may not want to make changes to the environment just to make things easier to measure.  Instead, the ABA professional would look at ways of making the measurement procedure more practical.  In the laboratory, a researcher may rearrange variables thought to be responsible for improvement – just to show which variable was responsible for the change.  In the real world, one may not want to reverse improvement just to make a point about a theory or procedure, whereas in the laboratory this may be necessary to fully validate a principle.

Still, the vast majority of techniques used in current practice are identical to or they are derived from techniques developed in laboratories.  There are too many to list here and if you are interested in ABA, it is best to consult sites dedicated to information on ABA.

The following articles look at common  practices used in ABA from a technical, practical and most of all, objective point of view… 

What “Positive Reinforcement” and “Positive Reinforcers” Really Mean: A Brief Working Definition

Learn the pros and cons of artificial reinforcement and the differences and between “positive reinforcement” and positive behavioral support…”   Read More…

Mastery is the “Reinforcer“

Learn how acquiring traits or persistence, resilience and a desire for mastery can easily replace the need for bribes, threats and punishment…  Read More…

Baseline Logic

No matter how far we’ve come or how good we think we are, no one can ever know why anyone really does anything.  We can only have a “hypothesis” as to why a person behaves in one way or another…  Read More…

Prompting – Pros, Cons, and Otherwise

Studying ABA, as well as Relationship/Based, Neurodevelopmental methods, teaches us there can be beneficial and harmful forms of prompting.  Beneficial forms lead to new ways of thinking, whereas harmful forms can lead to dependence, power struggles, or further inflexibility…   Read More…

Glossary of Terms Used in Applied Behavior Analysis

Right now – we’re borrowing one. This glossary is entirely of terms used in ABA.  Read More…

In the future, we hope to include definitions for terms we use elsewhere on this site from Neurodevelopment and Child Development, Autism and Developmental Psychopathology, Systems Theory, DIR/Floortime and Guided Participation among others.

Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention (EIBI)

Intensive Programming – What does that mean?

What do they mean by “intensive” in Early Intensive Behavior Intervention?  Read More…

An Applied Behavioral Analysis of some Developmental Techniques

ABA’s real strength is its guidelines fo evaluating the Validity, Accuracy, and Reliability of Teaching.  In this article, Applied Behavioral Analysis guidelines are used to evaluate some developmental methods

Criticism of Functional Analysis of Behavior

We look at all methodologies for what they are.  “Methods, not Religions” is a fair assessment of our attitude.

• No method is ideal for every situation
• No method is ideal for every person or family or context
• Parents and Families are entitled to a choice and to the full range of information

Because we do not have an ideological commitment to any single theory of behavior or unimodal intervention, we can afford to look not only at the advantages of a technique, but its shortcomings as well.  This provides opportunity to make it better.

Our own use of ABA is consistent with the rest of our philosophy.  It is informed by what we know from other scientific disciplines and adapted according to cardinal rules of scientific accuracy And inquiry established by TEAB and ABA.

Functional Behavioral Assessment: Deeper Understanding of Behavioral Handicaps or Trojan Horse?

This article was written by John Stewart, Ph.D., author of “Beyond Time Out”  It points out some important shortcomings of the current practice of Functional Assessment of Behavior.  Read More…

Is ABA the Only Way?

This seminal essay, written by Dr. Barry Prizant, one of the most established authorities of Autism and Communication, reminds us that a thorough knowledge of child development is not only required for quality intervention for Autism, but much of the techniques currently in use come from the research and practice of child development.  It’s not either/or, it’s both…  Read More…

ABA Jobs at SCS

Behavior Intervention (“BI”) Consultant/Analyst

The BI Consultant helps Parents, Teachers and other significant others understand the behavior and collaborates with them to develop means of improving behavior and teaching improved skills.

Applicants must have experience and have completed training in Psychology; ABA; Family Therapy, or in one of the Early Intervention Methods (below)… Read More…

Early Intervention Therapist

This person works directly with children and parents, providing Early Intervention for Development and Behavior.

At the supervisory level, we require certification in at least one of the evidence-based approaches to Early Intervention (ABA; DIR; RDI).

At the Therapist/Direct Treatment level, applicants must possess prior training and experience in at least one of the above techniques.  Applicants must be able to demonstrate proficiency and to explain the principles of the approach(es) in their areas of expertise…

Map of a Consultation Model: View from a Parent and a Professional

In case you’re planning to apply at SCS, you might want to read this before you interview…  Read More…

Related Links and Reading

Menu Page: SCS Philosophy, Methodology, and Policy  Read More…

Menu Page: Autism Spectrum and related Disorders of Relating and Communicating.  Read More…

Menu Page: Parent Education and Parenting Techniques  Read More…