The evidence‐based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism report: Concerns and critiques

Leaf and colleagues read the 2020 National Clearinghouse on Autism Evidence and Practice report.

They wrote a point-by-point critique of how the report picked its 28 "evidence-based" practices.

The authors are board-certified behavior analysts. They focused on choices that affect day-to-day clinical work.

The report used loose inclusion rules. Many studies had weak designs, small samples, or no comparison group.

Some practices made the list after only one or two shaky studies.

The authors warn that adopting these 28 practices without question could waste time and money for families.

Shea (2004) said the same thing earlier. That review showed the famous "47 % recovery" claim from Lovaas therapy rested on thin evidence.

Maltz (1981) also flagged weak controls in early language studies. The pattern is old: big claims, small proof.

Vivanti et al. (2025) carry the argument forward. They show that even solid evidence dies on the policy vine if teams ignore implementation science.

Together the papers form a decades-long thread: look past the headline before you tell families "this works."

You probably cite the NCAEP list when you write goals or justify billing. Leaf et al. do not say trash the list. They say slow down. Read the actual studies behind each practice. If the proof is thin, add extra measures, treat it as pilot work, and keep data. Your integrity, and the child’s progress, depend on that extra step.