The Social Validity of Behavioral Interventions: Seeking Input from Autistic Adults
Saved in:
| Title: | The Social Validity of Behavioral Interventions: Seeking Input from Autistic Adults |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Kaitlynn M. P. Baiden (ORCID |
| Source: | Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2025 55(4):1172-1186. |
| Availability: | Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 15 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Autism Spectrum Disorders, Behavior Modification, Intervention, Children, Adults, Attitudes, Program Effectiveness, Attitudes toward Disabilities, Social Attitudes, Goal Orientation, Validity |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10803-024-06297-3 |
| ISSN: | 0162-3257 1573-3432 |
| Abstract: | Many in the autistic community have expressed concerns regarding the use of behavioral interventions with autistic children, suggesting that these interventions may not be socially valid. Though behavioral interventions have evolved to be more naturalistic and child-centered, little structured research has been done to explicitly seek autistic perspectives on the acceptability of specific components of behavioral interventions. Autistic adults (N = 235) were recruited online to take the Autism Intervention Attitudes Scale (AIAS), a questionnaire designed to gather feedback on common intervention goals and practices. Results indicate that participants find goals and practices that highlight quality of life, safety, and autistic interactions acceptable, while those that focus on normalization based on neurotypical standards are not. An exploratory graph analysis revealed three communities of goals ("uncontroversial goals", "controversial goals", and "social goals"). Comparison between naturalistic and structured intervention components additionally showed that autistic participants favored naturalistic strategies. These findings are in line with known criticisms of behavioral intervention from autistic adults, but also provide more information on the specific ways in which behavioral interventions can be reformed. This information can guide professionals in the development of appropriate goals and decisions around intervention planning. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1464115 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Many in the autistic community have expressed concerns regarding the use of behavioral interventions with autistic children, suggesting that these interventions may not be socially valid. Though behavioral interventions have evolved to be more naturalistic and child-centered, little structured research has been done to explicitly seek autistic perspectives on the acceptability of specific components of behavioral interventions. Autistic adults (N = 235) were recruited online to take the Autism Intervention Attitudes Scale (AIAS), a questionnaire designed to gather feedback on common intervention goals and practices. Results indicate that participants find goals and practices that highlight quality of life, safety, and autistic interactions acceptable, while those that focus on normalization based on neurotypical standards are not. An exploratory graph analysis revealed three communities of goals ("uncontroversial goals", "controversial goals", and "social goals"). Comparison between naturalistic and structured intervention components additionally showed that autistic participants favored naturalistic strategies. These findings are in line with known criticisms of behavioral intervention from autistic adults, but also provide more information on the specific ways in which behavioral interventions can be reformed. This information can guide professionals in the development of appropriate goals and decisions around intervention planning. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0162-3257 1573-3432 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10803-024-06297-3 |
