Can the Early Start Denver Model Be Considered ABA Practice?

Vivanti and colleagues asked a simple question. Does the Early Start Denver Model count as real ABA?

They lined up ESDM against Baer, Wolf & Risley's seven classic dimensions. Applied, behavioral, analytic, technological, conceptually systematic, effective, and generality.

The paper is pure theory. No kids, no trials, just a checklist argument.

Every box was ticked. ESDM targets socially important skills, measures behavior, uses single-case designs, writes clear protocols, ties to behavioral principles, shows meaningful change, and promotes generalization.

The authors conclude BCBAs can call ESDM 'ABA' when talking to funders or licensure boards.

Powell et al. (2020) did the same mapping trick. They showed quality-improvement tools like PDSA cycles also satisfy the seven dimensions. Together the two papers give BCBAs a menu of non-traditional practices that still count as ABA.

Sherman et al. (2021) took the opposite road. They ran an experiment proving BST can make Direct Instruction work for autistic students. Vivanti offers theory, Sherman offers data; both legitimize autism interventions that sit outside the usual DTT playbook.

Johnson et al. (1994) started the trend decades earlier. They mapped Deming's Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle onto behavioral consultation, showing this 'is-it-ABA?' debate is old wine in a new bottle.

If you supervise an ESDM classroom, you can now sign the treatment plan without apology. When the insurance reviewer asks 'Is this ABA?' you have a peer-reviewed paper that says yes. Keep a copy of Vivanti et al. (2021) in your files next time you submit authorizations.