Correlates of interventions with self-injurious behaviour.

Matson et al. (1994) read every SIB paper from 1980-1990. They looked for who got which treatment and how well it worked. They lined up client age, sex, setting, and problem type with the chosen fix.

The review found 24 strong links and 5 weaker ones. Older kids got punishment more often. Adults in wards got drugs. Young kids in schools got rewards. The same plan did not work for every person.

Wynne et al. (1988) said most 1980s studies were weak: no functional test, no check if skills moved to new places. Matson et al. (1994) show why the weak work stayed weak — we matched the wrong tool to the person.

Bottema-Beutel et al. (2024) looked at autistic teens and saw the same mess: no clear labels, no function check. The 1994 warning still rings true thirty years later.

Bottema‐Beutel et al. (2025) found 102 early-autism papers that also failed to say why a behavior needed fixing. The old bias keeps repeating; we keep skipping the first step.

Before you pick a treatment, list the client’s age, living place, and behavior form. If the file says "aggression" but gives no function, stop and do an FA. Pick rewards first for kids and group homes. Pick drugs or punishment only after data show rewards failed. Write the reason in the plan so the next BCBA knows why you chose it.