Problem behavior interventions for young children with autism: a research synthesis.

Doughty et al. (2002) read every paper they could find on stopping problem behavior in kids with autism under age eight. They looked at work published between 1996 and 2000.

They did not run new experiments. They simply told the story of what had been tried and what was still missing.

The review found scattered ideas but no clear winner. Most studies were tiny and weak.

The authors said the field needed tougher tests before anyone could claim a best practice.

Klusek et al. (2015) later ran a tighter systematic review on infant work. They still found the same gap: too few strong studies. Their call echoed the 2002 plea for better data.

Reichow et al. (2010) moved the yardsticks forward. They used strict EBP rules and crowned social-skills groups as 'established.' This was the kind of firm verdict H et al. said was missing.

Bernard-Opitz et al. (2004) ran a head-to-head test right after the review window. Behavioral beats natural play on attending and compliance. That single study gave clearer direction than the whole 1996-2000 pile.

If you write a behavior plan for a preschooler with autism, this paper is your warning label. Do not trust tiny, old studies that merely say 'it worked.' Look for systematic reviews or single-case designs with strong controls. When you pick an intervention, cite later work like Reichow et al. (2010) that meets modern EBP standards. Your clinical note should show why you chose the method and what data will prove it works.