Billets de Michelle Dawson

Billet publié sur Bluesky le 19/04/2025 11:34

Bluesky Publication avec DOI crossref Extrait cité dans le billet Question posée par Dawson dans le billet Lien intégré au billet

In recent (2002-22) ABA single case studies targeting "problem behavior" in autistic & IDD adults, "it appears large effect sizes may be generally associated with multi-protocol treatments that featured a punishment element"? journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/... dubious unregistered review, free

Voir sur Bluesky

Liens cités structurés

1 ressource citée

Publication avec DOI Récupéré Publication crossref

Nazurah Khokhar, Alison D. Cox, Asude Ayvaci, Thurka Thillainathan, Sonia Stellato (2026). Research Patterns in the Treatment of Adults With Problem Behavior and Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: A Quantitative Systematic Review. Behavior Modification, 50(1), 3-31. SAGE Publications.

Date de publication
12/04/2025
Identifiant
10.1177/01454455251332545
Auteurs
Nazurah Khokhar, Alison D. Cox, Asude Ayvaci, Thurka Thillainathan, Sonia Stellato
Source
Behavior Modification
Détails
50(1), 3-31
Type de référence
article
Éditeur
SAGE Publications
Source de métadonnées
crossref

Résumé

Research featuring adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities who engage in problem behavior has outlined various treatment approaches. The current quantitative systematic literature review identified and coded 76 peer-reviewed and gray literature articles published between January 2002 and September 2022. Following article identification and coding, we calculated effect size estimates (i.e., Tau Baseline Corrected) and assessed the methodological rigor of included articles. Through this work, we uncovered 42 unique multi-protocol treatments (i.e., treatments incorporating multiple therapeutic elements). Multi-protocol treatments were associated with larger effect sizes (more effective) compared to single-protocol treatments. The average methodological rigor score associated with peer-reviewed works was 1.6 (out of 4), while gray literature works scored 1.2. We offer commentary in response to these outcomes, alongside recommendations for future research to address the many avenues of inquiry that appear to remain largely neglected (e.g., component analysis to evaluate individual treatment elements and their efficacy).

Auteur·ices de l’étude dans cette référence citée