Over the last three decades, instructional methods derived from applied behavior analysis (ABA) have shown considerable promise for many young children with autism. The ABA approach establishes a priori that assessment and intervention methods must be based on generally accepted rules of scientific evidence. On one hand, the approach has produced a rich resource of conceptually consistent and scientifically validated techniques that can be applied in various combinations across many different contexts. On the other hand, this diversity has resulted in some confusion regarding the precise characteristics of ABA. In this article, the authors first describe many of the common programmatic and methodologic elements that form the foundation of the approach. A summary of the scope of the behavioral research is provided including greater detail on six studies that demonstrated large-scale interventions. Finally, the authors describe components of program models that share common elements of the ABA approach and use a broad continuum of traditional behavioral techniques. Some specific myths about the approach are simultaneously addressed. DESCRIPTORS: applied behavior analysis, intervention methods, program models, autism Autism is a serious developmental disability that provides a complex challenge for parents, professionals, and all those who come in contact with the child. Autism is a syndrome, as opposed to a disease entity, that is characterized by specific behavioral patterns and characteristics. A complex disorder (

Reliability of observational data was measured simultaneously by two assessors under two experimental conditions. During overt assessment, observers were told that reliability would be measured by one of the two assessors, thus permitting computation of reliability with an identified and an unidentified assessor. During covert assessment, observers were not informed of the reliability measured. Throughout the study, each of the assessors employed a unique version of a standard observational code. In the overt assessment condition, reliability of observers with the identified assessor was consistently higher than reliability with the unidentified assessor, indicating that observers modified their observational criteria to approximate those of the identified assessor. In the covert assessment condition, reliability with the two assessors was substantially lower than during overt assessment. Further, observers consistently recorded lower frequencies of disruptive behavior than the two assessors during covert assessment.

No abstract

No abstract