Evidence and Evidence-Based Practices: Are We There Yet?

Bassett-Gunter et al. (2017) wrote a how-to guide. They asked, 'What counts as solid proof that an IDD treatment really works?' The paper lists the checks you must pass before calling any practice evidence-based. It covers internal validity (did the study rule out other causes?) and external validity (will it work in real homes and classrooms?).

The authors found no single short cut. They show that you need a chain of studies, not just one good result. They warn that weak proof hurts clients and wastes money. The paper ends with a checklist BCBAs can use to size up any new intervention.

Wehman et al. (2014) already did the leg work. Their review of 59 studies gives a ready example of the deep dive L et al. demand. It shows how to pull together scattered MO studies and judge the pile as one body of proof.

Zervogianni et al. (2020) extend the same rules to iPad apps. They build a 3×4 grid (reliability, engagement, effectiveness × four sources) that turns the 2017 checklist into a quick screen for autism tech.

Leaf et al. (2017) sound a similar alarm the same year. While L et al. target weak evidence, Leaf et. target weak staff credentials. Both papers push the field to raise standards before service reaches the client.

Next time a vendor says 'evidence-based,' open the L et al. checklist first. Run the study through the internal- and external-validity hoops. If it fails, keep looking. Your clients get interventions that truly work, and you guard your BCBA credential against hype.