In Defense of Applied Behavior Analysis and Evidence-Based Practice
The abuse label is a myth—arm yourself with citations, not anger.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Travers et al. (2025) wrote a position paper. They listed common attacks on ABA. They answered each one with research citations.
The paper is not a new experiment. It is a shield you can hold when someone says ABA is abusive or coercive.
What they found
The authors show that decades of data support ABA. They call the abuse claim a myth.
They urge BCBAs to stay calm and point to the evidence base.
How this fits with other research
Webb et al. (1999) found no proof that antipsychotic drugs help challenging behavior in adults with ID. Travers can use this gap to argue that behavior analysis, not pills, has the data.
Mulder et al. (2020) say teacher colleges skip behavior-management training. Travers extends that idea: when ABA is ignored, teachers fall back on punishment.
Kornack et al. (2019) defend ABA on a different front—language access. Both papers tell practitioners: know the law, show the data, and keep improving.
Why it matters
Next time a parent, teacher, or advocate calls ABA cruel, you can open this paper. Read the bullet-point rebuttal. Cite the studies listed. Stay factual, not emotional. Share the paper with your supervisor and your social-media BCBA group so the whole team uses the same evidence-based script.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Print the paper’s one-page myth-buster sheet and keep it in your clipboard for meetings.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This commentary critically appraises attacks on applied behavior analysis (ABA) from outside and—increasingly—within the field. Commonly repeated attacks are that ABA is coercive and suppresses individual identity, aligns with the medical model, causes trauma, and, in more extreme cases, constitutes abuse. We illustrate how these claims are based on unfounded criticism and longstanding myths about ABA and stand in direct contrast to the empirical foundations of behavior analysis. We also highlight how such criticism conflicts with over half a century of evidence that ABA supports autonomy and enhances wellbeing of people with autism and developmental disabilities. We call for self-reflection among well-meaning behavior analysts who repeat such criticisms and greater attention to evidence-based practice.
Perspectives on Behavior Science, 2025 · doi:10.1007/s40614-025-00468-y