Joseph H. Cihon

Social Thinking®: Science, Pseudoscience, or Antiscience?

Today, there are several interventions that can be implemented with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Most of these interventions have limited to no empirical evidence demonstrating their effectiveness, yet they are widely implemented in home, school, university, and community settings. In 1996, Green wrote a chapter in which she outlined three levels of science: evidence science, pseudoscience, and antiscience; professionals were encouraged to implement and recommend only those procedures that would be considered evidence science. Today, an intervention that is commonly implemented with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder is Social Thinking®. This intervention has been utilized by behaviorists and non-behaviorists. This commentary will outline Social Thinking® and provide evidence that the procedure, at the current time, qualifies as a pseudoscience and, therefore, should not be implemented with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, especially given the availability of alternatives which clearly meet the standard of evidence science.

Instructive feedback embedded within group instruction for children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder

The present study evaluated the effects of instructive feedback embedded within a group discrete trial teaching to teach tact relations to nine children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder using a nonconcurrent multiple-baseline design. Dependent variables included correct responses for: primary targets (directly taught), secondary targets (taught via instructive feedback), primary observational targets (directly taught to other members of the group), and secondary observational targets (taught via instructive feedback provided to other members of the group). Results showed that all nine participants reached the mastery criterion for the primary targets, as well as acquired the secondary and observational targets without direct teaching. Clinical implications and areas for future research are provided.

The Effects of the Cool Versus Not Cool Procedure to Teach Social Game Play to Individuals Diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

This study evaluated the utility of the cool versus not cool procedure for teaching three structured indoor games to eight children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The study took place as part of a social skills group for individuals diagnosed with ASD, and this study was one component of that group. The cool versus not cool procedure consisted of the teacher demonstrating each game the cool (i.e., appropriate) and not cool (i.e., inappropriate) way and having the participants provide a rationale as to why the demonstration was either cool or not cool. This was followed by giving the participants the opportunity to role-play the game in front of the group. The teachers utilized unprompted performance probes with no programmed reinforcement to create opportunities for the participants to display the targeted behavior (s). A multiple baseline design across behaviors and replicated across participants was utilized. The results indicated that seven of the eight participants mastered each of the games taught.

Advantages and Challenges of a Home- and Clinic-Based Model of Behavioral Intervention for Individuals Diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Researchers have demonstrated that comprehensive behavioral intervention can result in significant improvements in the lives of individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD; e.g.; Lovaas, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 55(1):3–9, 1987; McEachin et al., American Journal of Mental Retardation 97(4):359–372, 1993). This intervention has occurred in a variety of settings (e.g., school, home, and clinic). Even though procedures based upon the principles of applied behavior analysis (ABA) can be implemented across a variety of settings, there is often confusion about the differences and relative advantages of home- versus clinic-based settings. The purpose of this paper is to provide a discussion of home- and clinic-based intervention within the context of a progressive approach to ABA and discus possible advantages of each type of setting.

Using the Teaching Interaction Procedure to Teach Social Skills for Individuals Diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Autism spectrum disorder is marked by qualitative impairments with social skills, communication, and restricted and/or repetitive behavior. Given the social skills deficits commonly associated with autism spectrum disorder, several interventions have been developed and explored empirically. One such intervention, which has a considerable history within the practice domain of applied behavior analysis, but has just recently gained more attention with respect to autism intervention, is the teaching interaction procedure. The teaching interaction procedure is a multi-step, systematic approach that has been used to teach a variety of skills for individual diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder; however, this chapter focuses on the use of the teaching interaction procedure to improve social skills. This chapter describes the general sequence of the steps of the teaching interaction procedure and how the teaching interaction procedure differs from other similar interventions. An extensive review of the literature as it applies to social skills development is also provided as well as a discussion of implications for clinicians and potential future areas of research.

Erratum to: Social Thinking®: Science, Pseudoscience, or Antiscience?

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1007/s40617-016-0108-1.].

Assessment of social validity trends in the journal of applied behavior analysis

ABSTRACT Montrose Wolf provided a definition and outline of the importance of the assessment of social validity as it applies to the field of applied behavior analysis. Since Wolf’s seminal paper, researchers have conducted analyses of the social validity trends of the first 31 years (1968-1998) of the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA). The purpose of the current review is to extend the findings those analyses by assessing the trends of the assessment of social validity in JABA from 1999-2016. Overall, the results of the present review indicated that social validity measures were reported in an average of 12% of articles published within JABA that met the inclusion criteria. The results are discussed within the context of the potential implications for the field of applied behavior analysis as well as areas of future research to improve the reporting of the assessment of social validity.

Evaluating Three Methods of Stimulus Rotation when Teaching Receptive Labels

The teaching of receptive labels (i.e., auditory-visual conditional discriminations) is common among early intervention programs for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Discrete trial teaching (DTT) is a common approach used to teach these receptive labels. Some have argued that the stimuli within the array, target and non-target, must be counterbalanced to prevent the development of undesired stimulus control. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of three different approaches to stimulus rotation to teach receptive labels to five young children diagnosed with ASD. These approaches included counterbalanced, fixed, and clinician’s choice. The results of an adapted alternating treatment design replicated across three stimulus sets and five participants indicated that all three methods of rotation were effective. Maintenance and generalization for targets taught in all three conditions was also assessed. The implications of the results with respect to current teaching practices in early intervention programs are discussed.

Use of a Level System with Flexible Shaping to Improve Synchronous Engagement

Level systems have been described as a framework which can be used to shape behavior through the systematic application of behavioral principles. Within level systems, an individual moves up and down through various levels contingent upon specific behaviors. Although level systems are commonly used within schools and other settings, they have a limited empirical literature base, and there is debate over the efficacy and overall acceptance of level systems. More especially, there is scant empirical literature on the use level systems to improve socially significant behaviors (e.g., synchronous engagement) with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a level system with a structured, yet flexible approach to movement on improving synchronous engagement with two dyads of children diagnosed with ASD. The results of an ABAB reversal design indicated that the level system was effective at improving synchronous engagement for both dyads. The results are discussed in relation to potential future research difficulties and clinical implications.

Social Thinking®, Pseudoscientific, Not Empirically Supported, and Non-Evidence Based: a Reply to Crooke and Winner

J. B. Leaf et al. (Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9, 152–157, 2016) wrote a commentary on social thinking (ST), an intervention commonly implemented for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The authors described what constitutes scientific, pseudoscientific, and antiscientific evidence and contended that ST aligns with the definition of pseudoscience and, to date, is not empirically supported or evidence based. Crooke and Winner (Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9, 403–408, 2016) responded, arguing that ST meets their definition of an evidence-based practice and identifying purported misconceptions and inaccuracies described by J. B. Leaf et al. In the current article, the authors clarify the original arguments, critically evaluate Crooke and Winner’s definition of what constitutes evidence-based practice, further evaluate the research on ST, discuss issues regarding how ST is conceptualized, and express concerns about the endorsement and use of an eclectic approach to treating ASD. As this response was written by behavior analysts, it specifically addresses the conceptual consistency of this approach from a behavior–analytic worldview.