By Matt Harrington, BCBA · Behaviorist Book Club · Research-backed answers for behavior analysts
The neurodiversity paradigm holds that neurological variation — including autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and other conditions — represents natural human diversity rather than deficits requiring correction. Within this framework, interventions that target autistic characteristics because they are atypical rather than because they cause harm are ethically questionable. The paradigm does not preclude ABA, but it challenges BCBAs to examine their goal-selection practices: Are targets chosen because they reduce suffering and increase access to communication and quality of life, or because they make autistic individuals appear more neurotypical? ABA that focuses on the former is compatible with neurodiversity values; ABA that prioritizes the latter is not.
The autistic community's concerns about ABA are substantially shaped by documented historical practices including the use of electric shock aversion (associated with the Judge Rotenberg Center), intensive compliance training using aversive contingencies in early EIBI, the explicit goal in early intervention literature of making autistic children indistinguishable from neurotypical peers, and the suppression of communication methods — including AAC and sign language — in favor of vocal speech. These events are documented in the professional literature and acknowledged by leaders in the field. BCBAs who engage these concerns without historical awareness will be less credible to families and communities who have this context.
Masking refers to the conscious or unconscious process by which autistic individuals suppress or camouflage autistic behavioral characteristics — including stimming, alternative communication patterns, and non-normative social behaviors — to appear more neurotypical in social and professional contexts. Research published in peer-reviewed journals has documented that masking is prevalent among autistic individuals, is associated with significant exhaustion, anxiety, depression, and difficulties with identity, and is more prevalent in females and individuals who received extensive early behavioral intervention. These findings provide empirical grounding for concerns that ABA goals targeting behavioral normalization may produce psychological costs that behavioral outcome measures do not capture.
Genuine alliance-building requires active engagement rather than passive non-offense. Practical steps include: reading, following, and citing autistic self-advocates and researchers; inviting autistic adults to contribute to clinical training, peer consultation, and community advisory boards; incorporating autistic perspectives into consent and treatment planning processes in ways that go beyond checkbox compliance; supporting families in accessing autistic community resources alongside behavioral services; and being willing to modify clinical practice in response to autistic perspectives even when those modifications are professionally uncomfortable. Alliance-building is an ongoing relational practice, not a one-time declaration.
Procedures most frequently criticized include: extinction-based compliance training, particularly when used for behaviors with communicative functions; intensive discrete trial training that prioritizes trial throughput over the client's behavioral state and emotional experience; suppression of self-stimulatory behavior (stimming) without functional assessment of the behavior's role; demanding eye contact that is experienced as painful or aversive by many autistic individuals; and goals targeting behavioral normalization rather than functional outcomes. Current BACB Ethics Code requirements have addressed some but not all of these concerns — BCBAs should evaluate their own practice against both the Ethics Code standards and the specific concerns raised by autistic advocates.
The claim that ABA causes PTSD is based primarily on retrospective survey data from autistic adults, which has significant methodological limitations including retrospective bias, no control condition, and potential demand characteristics. However, dismissing this claim without engagement is not appropriate. The appropriate response is to acknowledge that some autistic adults report negative experiences with ABA services and that these reports represent important data about the experiential quality of services — even if they cannot establish causal claims about PTSD with methodological rigor. Then describe specifically how your practice addresses the concerns that would produce negative experiences: assent procedures, naturalistic methods, quality-of-life outcome measurement, and attention to the client's emotional state during sessions.
Code 1.07 requires BCBAs to actively engage in cultural humility — ongoing awareness of how cultural context shapes clinical relationships, with specific attention to power dynamics and historical inequities. For autistic clients, their cultural context includes autistic community identity, the history of the autistic rights movement, and the specific concerns about ABA that have been central to that movement. Cultural humility in this context means acknowledging this history without defensiveness, listening to autistic perspectives as authoritative on the experience of receiving ABA services, and examining the values embedded in clinical goals with genuine openness to alternative perspectives. It is not about abandoning evidence-based practice but about ensuring that evidence-based practice is grounded in the full complexity of what constitutes a beneficial outcome.
A neurodiversity-informed evaluation of behavioral targets applies the following questions: Does the behavior cause direct harm through injury, prevent access to communication, or significantly limit safety? Does the behavior represent a genuine functional impairment — a communication or adaptive skill deficit — rather than an atypical characteristic that is primarily bothersome to neurotypical observers? Would an autistic adult looking at this target recognize it as serving the client's interests, or would they see it as serving the comfort of neurotypical observers? Has the client expressed preferences about this behavior? Are there autistic-designed quality-of-life frameworks that validate this target as meaningful? Targets that cannot withstand this scrutiny should be reconsidered.
Genuine assent for ABA services is an ongoing process rather than a one-time agreement. It involves explaining services in accessible language before and during implementation, actively soliciting the client's preferences about goals and procedures, treating behavioral indicators of distress or refusal as potential assent withdrawal signals rather than behavioral incidents to be managed, allowing clients to refuse specific procedures without global program suspension, and regularly revisiting assent as the client's communication repertoire, needs, and preferences evolve. Assent is not fully equivalent to informed consent, but for autistic individuals who can express preferences, it represents a genuine ethical obligation under Code 2.11 that BCBAs must take seriously.
These commitments are compatible rather than contradictory when evidence is understood broadly. A genuine commitment to evidence-based practice requires measuring the outcomes that matter — including quality of life, emotional wellbeing, self-determination, and community belonging alongside behavioral skill acquisition. It requires honest evaluation of evidence, including evidence from autistic self-report about the experiential quality of ABA services. It requires selecting goals and procedures that the evidence supports as producing comprehensive positive outcomes for this specific client, not just outcomes that satisfy institutional or professional conventions. BCBAs who hold both commitments simultaneously are in a better position to practice in a way that serves autistic individuals comprehensively than those who treat them as fundamentally opposed.
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Ready to go deeper? This course covers this topic with structured learning objectives and CEU credit.
Addressing Concerns About ABA | Learning | 1 Hour — Autism Partnership Foundation · 1 BACB General CEUs · $0
Take This Course →1 BACB General CEUs · $0 · Autism Partnership Foundation
Research-backed educational guide with practice recommendations
Side-by-side comparison with clinical decision framework
All behavior-analytic intervention is individualized. The information on this page is for educational purposes and does not constitute clinical advice. Treatment decisions should be informed by the best available published research, individualized assessment, and obtained with the informed consent of the client or their legal guardian. Behavior analysts are responsible for practicing within the boundaries of their competence and adhering to the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts.