Public Perception of Autism Treatments: The Role of Credibility and Evidence.
Calling a practice 'evidence-based' out loud makes families and staff more likely to accept it.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team ran an online survey with adults in the United States. Each person read short stories about different autism treatments. Some stories said the treatment was evidence-based. Others did not.
The researchers then asked, 'How believable is this treatment?' and 'Would you use it?' They wanted to see if the simple label 'evidence-based' changed answers.
What they found
People rated treatments marked 'evidence-based' as more believable. They also said they would use these treatments more often.
Even a short sentence citing a trusted source, like a university study, boosted scores. The label mattered more than the details inside the story.
How this fits with other research
Callahan et al. (2008) already showed that parents, teachers, and principals like evidence-based parts of school plans. The new study proves that a quick label is enough to create that liking.
Schreck et al. (2016) found that TV shows praise non-EBP diets and rarely mention ABA. Together, the two papers show families hear mixed messages. Your own clear 'evidence-based' cue can cut through the noise.
Campbell et al. (2021) asked BCBAs the same question. Many said ABA works for everyone, yet some still back non-EBP tools for 'certain kids.' The public survey and the BCBA survey line up: everyone leans on simple credibility hints.
Why it matters
You can shape parent buy-in before the first session starts. State out loud, 'This plan is evidence-based, and here is the research.' One sentence raises trust and keeps fad diets off the table. Use the same line in staff meetings when supervisors suggest unproven add-ons.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Start every parent meeting with one slide: 'This program is evidence-based. Here is the journal article.'
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We explored the influence of credibility and evidence on public perceptions of ASD treatments using survey methodology. Participants (N = 379) read texts about different ASD treatments. The text presentation was based on a 2 × 2 within-subjects factorial design with treatment status [evidence based practices (EBP) vs. non-EBP] and source credibility in the text (credible vs. non-credible) as the independent variables. An instructional manipulation condition served as a between subjects factor. Respondents were more familiar with non-EBPs than EBPs, but viewed EBPs as being more credible and were more likely to endorse them compared to pseudoscientific practices. Interactions between source credibility and instructional manipulation were found on ratings of credibility and recommendation of both EBP and non-EBP texts. Implications of these findings are discussed.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2019 · doi:10.1007/s10803-018-03868-z