Overview of NIMH support of research in behavior therapy.

In 1973, NIMH leaders wrote a short policy paper. They listed where federal money would go for behavior therapy research.

They asked for more head-to-head studies. They wanted proof that behavior therapy beats standard care.

The paper is a snapshot, not a data set. It shows the wish list: better studies, clearer measures, real-world tests.

King et al. (2020) looked back at 1,228 behavior-analytic reviews. Most were still narrative and lacked clear search plans. The 1973 call for rigor is still waiting to be met.

Bottema-Beutel et al. (2025) checked 102 early-autism studies. Most never defined the problem behaviors they tried to reduce. Again, the 1973 plea for clear measures remains open.

Kemp et al. (2024) counted how often ABA studies use edible reinforcers. Fewer than one in three did. This gives you a modern baseline that the 1973 paper could only request.

The 1973 paper is a time capsule. It asked for the exact tools we still need: tight definitions, comparative designs, and transparent reporting. When you read a review today, check if it meets the 1973 standards. If it skips search terms or mixes vague behaviors, treat it like a red flag. Use the modern audits—King, Bottema-Beutel, Kemp—as quick litmus tests for quality.