Response patterns for individuals receiving contingent skin shock aversion intervention to treat violent self-injurious and assaultive behaviours

Problems with "problem behavior": A secondary systematic review of intervention research on transition-age autistic youth

LAY ABSTRACT

In a previous study, we looked at research done on strategies to support autistic people who were between 14 and 22 years old. For this study, we looked at all of the studies in our previous study that tried to decrease or stop autistic people from doing certain things-many researchers call these things "problem behavior." There were 48 studies that tried to reduce problem behavior, and most of them used strategies like prompting and reinforcement to try get autistic people to change their behavior. We found many things wrong with these studies. Most of them did not define the group of behaviors they were trying to stop autistic people from doing. None of the studies looked at whether any side effects happened when they tried the strategy they were studying. Also, most of the studies tried to stop autistic people from doing behaviors that probably were not harmful, like stereotypic behavior. Most of the studies did not say how they decided that the behaviors they tried to stop were a problem for the autistic people in the study, and most studies did not try to figure out why the autistic people in the study did the behaviors the researchers were trying to stop them from doing.

Report of the ABAI Task Force on Contingent Electric Skin Shock

As a task force appointed by the Executive Council of the Association for Behavior Analysis International (ABAI), we investigated the clinical use of contingent electric skin shock (CESS) in behavior analytic treatments for severe problem behavior. We studied how CESS is used in contemporary behavior analysis, reinforcement-based alternatives to CESS, and current ethical and professional guidelines for applied behavior analysts. We recommended that ABAI uphold clients' right to receive CESS when it is restricted to extreme cases and used under rigorous professional and legal oversight. Our recommendation was rejected by a vote of the full members of ABAI, who instead endorsed an alternative recommendation, developed by members of the Executive Council, that opposed the use of CESS under any condition. Here we present for the record our report and initial recommendations, the formal statement that was rejected by the members of ABAI, and the statement that was endorsed.

When Science Cannot Guide us: A Call to Action for Applied Behavior Analysts

Evidence presented in the ABAI Task Force Report on Contingent Electric Skin Shock (CESS) revealed serious ethical, clinical, and practical problems with the contemporary use of CESS. As a member of the task force, I ultimately concluded that our recommended position statement ("Position A") was a misguided attempt to uphold the field's commitment to client choice. Furthermore, information gathered by the task force supports an urgent call to find solutions to two additional troubling issues: a severe shortage of treatment services for severe problem behavior and the near-absence of research on treatment-resistant behavior. In this commentary, I discuss reasons Position A was not a tenable stance and why we must do better to help our most vulnerable clients.