Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Applied behaviour analysis/Archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] WLU's statement regards the dispute
My objections to User:Ensrifraff's edits have more to do with his sources than his statements. If he can provide sources that comply with WP:RS, I'd have fewer problems with his edits. To demonstrate:
- here is my original removal where I cite the need for reliable sources
- here I cite it again (and follow-up)
- here I cite WP:RS again
My problem with Ensrifraff's additions are not their content (though the tone and wording do need to be adjusted to avoid POV), it's with the sources used to justify what I see as inaccurate information. However, there have been numerous reversions [1] [2] [3] [4] between us and at least one other user.
A last point - I don't think mediation is really the place to start. Ensrifraff would be better off reading the policy and addressing my concerns with it. Or spending time finding reliable sources for his assertions.
WLU 21:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] reversions
"us and at least one other user" is, er, I think me. Yes, now I recall reverting some comments in the aversives section. They were citations from behavior.org which did not support the contention mentioned (I believe they were assertions about robotic behavior as a result of autism treatment). The citation was listed to support the contention but the source itself mentioned that argument and argued against it. Behavior.org is a part of the cambridge center for behavioral studies, a "behavior analysis" stronghold, and it wouldn't tend to support assertions that behavior analysis promotes "robotic behavior" (which itself is a nebulous assertion. robot is the russian word for worker, but in our culture has become to be associated with mechanistic behavior. It is, oddly enough, a variant on the assertion that behavior analysis is mechanistic, which it is not). I was unaware of this dispute when I made this reversion/edit and I did not, in fact, revert all of the material. I started to compile what I felt were better sources for the complaint (which is, as I note below, not totally unfounded) and then this mediation thing happened. --florkle 23:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ya, he'd be the other user. WLU 00:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] PTSD & Autism & Lovaas
In my opinion, it is not theoretically impossible for someone who receives treatment to "obtain" PTSD from that treatment. However, my recollection of PTSD requires a few key points (which I am recalling from memory from a clinical psychopathology class) 1)that it contain an episode in which there is death or physical harm or threat of death or harm to oneself or someone nearby, AND 2) that this threat or harm is responded to with some "horror or fear" on the part of the PTSD sufferer,AND 3) that they suffer "flashbacks" or other recurring images relating to the stress, AND 4)that they avoid stimuli associated with the event (i.e. a location where a robbery took place).
It has been noted by some that the cluster of symptoms for PTSD (aside from the definitional criteria above) is very broad and often hard to prove/disprove based on the enormous amount of latitude and the non-physical dimensions of the symptoms.
Specifically, in terms of Lovaas and Autism it does appear that he used "aversive" or punishment based techniques to reduce some forms of self-injury. He also used extinction. Both extinction and positive (presentation) punishment are now considered widely unethical in applied settings if used alone (that is not in conjunction with differential reinforcement for appropriate behavior). This study, although using retarded children and not autistic ones, shows the use of extinction and positive punishment (shock):
Lovaas & Simmons (1969) Manipulation of self-destruction in three retarded children1 Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1969 Fall; 2(3): 143–157. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1311058
However, a quick read of this paper, for example: "Some generalization and follow-up measures on autistic children in behavior therapy" O. Ivar Lovaas, Robert Koegel,2 James Q. Simmons, and Judith Stevens Long J Appl Behav Anal. 1973 Spring; 6(1): 131–165. yield hits on "punishment" and "extinction" when I searched, but only mentioned "mild punishment and extinction" in the use of controlling tantrum behavior: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1310815&pageindex=10#page
It is notable that both papers are roughly 30 years old, I think. Even if therapy done 30 years ago tended to use punishment and/or extinction it is not a proof that it still does. I have spoken to one autism practioner (I am not one) and she indicated to me that extinction is still used for tantrum behavior, but not punishment. I have no idea how "typical" her testimony is.
So, in terms of the issue debated "Can ABA Autism treatment provoke PTSD" I think the answer is "not likely" although it cannot be said to be impossible depending on the treatment provider (but then again it might speak more to the nature of PTSD than treatment). That ABA based practices would use extinction or punishment is not a foregone conclusion, and some programs are committed to "positives only" treatment forms. The use of aversives is contentious in ABA and some have spoken against it categorically (saying, for example, that it is not a matter of "effectiveness" but "appropriateness" saying even if it is effective it is never appropriate). I personally agree that it is never appropriate.fwiw. --florkle 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Jon Bailey notes that it was early research, often with aversive control. that created the foundation for modern ethical guidelines. "Many of the advances in ethical controls for behavior analysis came out of this [the early aversive therapy] era." Bailey & Burch (2005) Ethics for Behavior Analysts p. 29 This affirms the notion that it is not unfounded to equate aversive control with behavior analysis, however it may be unfounded to equate all therapy with aversive control, and it the trend is towards more 'ethical control' and away from aversive control. --florkle 23:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
