Behavioral treatment of the victims of child abuse and neglect.

The author read every paper he could find on treating kids who had been abused.

He saw almost no true experiments. Most reports were just case stories or loose charts.

He wrote a roadmap: use single-case designs, pick clear targets, track safety, and keep costs low.

There were no proven ABA packages for abuse victims in 1990.

The field had no agreed-upon way to measure trauma signs like flinching, lying, or food hoarding.

Without data, courts and clinics had to guess what might help.

Kok et al. (2026) later showed that child behavior plans do work—while sessions are running. Their meta-analysis of the kids gives hope, yet the gains faded once treatment stopped.

Lord et al. (2005) repeated the same worry for autism: we need RCTs and shared yardsticks. Both papers echo Storm (1990): pick one measure everyone uses.

Jonsson et al. (2016) scanned 15 autism RCTs and found most left out real-world details like who dropped out or how much staff training cost. Again, the same gap W flagged: studies must fit clinic life, not just lab life.

You may not treat abuse cases every day, but you still need tough targets and cheap measures. Pick one trauma cue—night waking, stealing food, or jumping at loud voices. Count it daily. Run a quick reversal or multiple-baseline plot. Share the graph with the team and the social worker. Small, clear data can protect the child and show the court what works.