Do Other Treatments Have as Much Scientific Support as ABA?

No. In fact, many individuals erroneously believe that the scientific literature in ABA is limited to the handful of studies listed above. It is important to acknowledge the very strong foundation for ABA as an effective intervention for addressing the challenges of autism. There are 1000+ research studies published in peer reviewed journals that document this effectiveness. It is this body of research that guides the treatment of autism for those who believe that ABA offers the best chance for recovery, not diets, not contact with dolphins, and not hyperbaric oxygen chambers. 

The research body supporting ABA is vast, spans several decades, and represents the contributions of hundreds of behavior analysts. The scientific rigor of this research varies widely; however, there are ample well-designed studies that meet standard criteria for classifying ABA treatments as evidence-based. ABA treatments have been documented to improve play, communication, language, social, self-help, domestic, and vocational skills. This is in stark contrast to most other treatments of autism that have never been empirically validated.  

It is important to note that there has been research supporting the use of medications to treat certain associated features of autism (e.g., aggression, overactivity, compulsions, tics, self-injury). Some of this research involves multisite clinical trials with large numbers of participants (see Myers & Johnson, 2007 cited below).  As mentioned above, there are other proponents of other interventions such as Floortime and RDI that have begun to publish data in peer reviewed journals. At the present time, much of this research does not include a comparison group or random assignment. In some cases, the only published research is carried out by the intervention’s primary proponent.  It will be necessary for more well designed research to be published documenting the efficacy of these treatments.  Furthermore, some of the research needs to be carried out by individuals who do not have a vested interest in a positive outcome. In the meantime, consumers and providers should proceed with caution.  The ASAT website has treatment summaries for the full array of treatments for autism.

Acknowledgment of the huge body of research in ABA, and documentation that most other interventions lack any degree of scientific support, can be found in several government reports. For instance, the Autism Task Force of MADSEC (Maine Administrators of Services for Children with Disabilities) performed a detailed analysis of methodologies with which to educate children with autism. ABA was the only treatment substantiated to be effective based on the scope and quality of research. This does not mean that ABA is the only intervention that is effective, just the only one demonstrated to be effective through published research.  One year prior, the New York State Department of Health also found that ABA was the only treatment substantiated to be effective based on the scope and quality of research. Consumers should also see the 2000 report of the US Surgeon General.

In sum, when compared to ABA, there is no other non-medical treatment for autism that has a similar level of scientific support.