Multidisciplinary assessment and treatment of self-injurious behavior in autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability: integration of psychological and biological theory and approach.

Foti et al. (2015) wrote a narrative review. They pulled together psychology and biology ideas about self-injury.

The paper is for people with autism or intellectual disability. It offers step-by-step plans that mix medical checks with behavior tools.

The team did not run new experiments. They built a flow chart that tells clinicians when to add medical tests to a behavior plan.

The chart keeps the classic FBA in place, but adds labs, meds, and sensory checks when behavior plans alone do not work.

Matson et al. (2008) said behavior tools are still the main choice. Foti et al. (2015) keep that core, but add a medical layer on top.

Erturk et al. (2018) looked at 46 single-case studies and saw 78% of kids improve with pure behavior care. That sounds like a clash, yet it is not. The 2015 paper agrees behavior tools come first; it only urges biology screens when progress stalls or risks are high.

Copeland et al. (2020) later gave BCBAs a red-flag checklist. Their how-to guide mirrors the 2015 call to watch for pain, meds, and sudden change while you run your ABA program.

You can keep your FBA and behavior plan, but now you have a script for when to loop in a doctor. Add the red-flag checklist to your intake, track sudden spikes, and ask the pediatrician for labs or a med review when data plateau. This small step can spare months of stalled therapy and missed pain.