A 5-Year Update of Conflicts of Interest in Autism Intervention Research in Applied Behavior Analysis Journals / Kristen BOTTEMA-BEUTEL in Autism, 30-7 (July 2026)  

Public ISBD [article]  inAutism > 30-7 (July 2026) . - p.1887-1894 Titre : A 5-Year Update of Conflicts of Interest in Autism Intervention Research in Applied Behavior Analysis Journals Type de document : texte imprimé Auteurs : Kristen BOTTEMA-BEUTEL, Auteur ; Jessica HINSON-WILLIAMS, Auteur ; Yueyang SHEN, Auteur ; Ruoxi GUO, Auteur ; Samantha BRAYTON, Auteur ; Jacqueline ALICEA, Auteur ; Shannon LAPOINT, Auteur Article en page(s) : p.1887-1894 Langues : Anglais (eng) Mots-clés : applied behavior analysis  autism  conflicts of interest  research ethics Index. décimale : PER Périodiques Résumé : Researchers’ false, incomplete, or missing disclosures of conflicts of interest (COIs) can introduce bias into research, can erode public trust in research findings, and represent ethical violations of most academic journal policies. A 2020 study discovered that publications in applied behavior analysis (ABA) journals are particularly problematic in adherence to COI disclosure ethics. The current study is a 5-year update of this previously conducted study. We examined autism intervention research articles published over a 1-year period in eight ABA journals. Two coders extracted author names and COI disclosure statements from each study and conducted web searches to determine if authors were affiliated with organizations providing ABA services or consulting. One hundred and nineteen studies met our inclusion criteria, from which we compiled a database of 450 authors. Seventy-eight percent of authors held clinical and/or consultancy COIs. At the study level, 93% of studies were written by at least one author with a clinical and/or consultancy COI. Only 8% of studies disclosed any author COIs, and only 2% disclosed clinical and/or consultancy COIs. Ninety-three percent of statements claiming no COIs were false. COIs are increasingly pervasive in ABA autism intervention research, and the vast majority remain undisclosed.Lay Abstract This study looked at how often researchers who publish about autism interventions in journals focused on one type of intervention called Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) tell readers about their conflicts of interest (COIs). COIs happen when researchers benefit from showing something specific in their research, such as an intervention making things better for autistic people. The COIs we looked at are when researchers also receive money to provide ABA to autistic people or help other researchers provide ABA to autistic people (i.e., they worked as a consultant). COIs can negatively affect how research is designed, interpreted, and presented. We wanted to see if researchers tell readers about their COIs, or if they say they do not have COIs when they do. We reviewed autism-related intervention papers published over 1 year in eight ABA journals. For every paper, we copied the COI statement. Then, we searched online to see if authors were working as or consulting with ABA service providers. We looked at 119 papers with a total of 450 authors. This study is a five-year update of a 2020 study that found widespread but rarely reported financial COIs among ABA researchers. In our updated study, we found that 78% of authors had a COI. Some worked in ABA clinics, some offered paid consulting to other ABA providers, and some did both. Almost all papers (93%) had at least one author with these kinds of connections. But very few (8%) mentioned any COIs, and only 2% of papers stated that the authors worked as ABA providers or consultants. Most papers said the authors had no conflicts at all, but this was often not true. In fact, 93% of “no COI” statements were false. Although more ABA journals now require disclosure than in the past, many statements are still inaccurate, showing that the problem has not improved. The people in charge of publishing research, and the people who write research papers, need to do much better to let readers know about researchers’ COIs. En ligne : https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13623613261433165 Permalink : https://www.cra-rhone-alpes.org/cid/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=590 [article] A 5-Year Update of Conflicts of Interest in Autism Intervention Research in Applied Behavior Analysis Journals [texte imprimé] / Kristen BOTTEMA-BEUTEL, Auteur ; Jessica HINSON-WILLIAMS, Auteur ; Yueyang SHEN, Auteur ; Ruoxi GUO, Auteur ; Samantha BRAYTON, Auteur ; Jacqueline ALICEA, Auteur ; Shannon LAPOINT, Auteur . - p.1887-1894. Langues : Anglais (eng) in Autism > 30-7 (July 2026) . - p.1887-1894 Mots-clés : applied behavior analysis  autism  conflicts of interest  research ethics Index. décimale : PER Périodiques Résumé : Researchers’ false, incomplete, or missing disclosures of conflicts of interest (COIs) can introduce bias into research, can erode public trust in research findings, and represent ethical violations of most academic journal policies. A 2020 study discovered that publications in applied behavior analysis (ABA) journals are particularly problematic in adherence to COI disclosure ethics. The current study is a 5-year update of this previously conducted study. We examined autism intervention research articles published over a 1-year period in eight ABA journals. Two coders extracted author names and COI disclosure statements from each study and conducted web searches to determine if authors were affiliated with organizations providing ABA services or consulting. One hundred and nineteen studies met our inclusion criteria, from which we compiled a database of 450 authors. Seventy-eight percent of authors held clinical and/or consultancy COIs. At the study level, 93% of studies were written by at least one author with a clinical and/or consultancy COI. Only 8% of studies disclosed any author COIs, and only 2% disclosed clinical and/or consultancy COIs. Ninety-three percent of statements claiming no COIs were false. COIs are increasingly pervasive in ABA autism intervention research, and the vast majority remain undisclosed.Lay Abstract This study looked at how often researchers who publish about autism interventions in journals focused on one type of intervention called Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) tell readers about their conflicts of interest (COIs). COIs happen when researchers benefit from showing something specific in their research, such as an intervention making things better for autistic people. The COIs we looked at are when researchers also receive money to provide ABA to autistic people or help other researchers provide ABA to autistic people (i.e., they worked as a consultant). COIs can negatively affect how research is designed, interpreted, and presented. We wanted to see if researchers tell readers about their COIs, or if they say they do not have COIs when they do. We reviewed autism-related intervention papers published over 1 year in eight ABA journals. For every paper, we copied the COI statement. Then, we searched online to see if authors were working as or consulting with ABA service providers. We looked at 119 papers with a total of 450 authors. This study is a five-year update of a 2020 study that found widespread but rarely reported financial COIs among ABA researchers. In our updated study, we found that 78% of authors had a COI. Some worked in ABA clinics, some offered paid consulting to other ABA providers, and some did both. Almost all papers (93%) had at least one author with these kinds of connections. But very few (8%) mentioned any COIs, and only 2% of papers stated that the authors worked as ABA providers or consultants. Most papers said the authors had no conflicts at all, but this was often not true. In fact, 93% of “no COI” statements were false. Although more ABA journals now require disclosure than in the past, many statements are still inaccurate, showing that the problem has not improved. The people in charge of publishing research, and the people who write research papers, need to do much better to let readers know about researchers’ COIs. En ligne : https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13623613261433165 Permalink : https://www.cra-rhone-alpes.org/cid/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=590

Maximizing the Quality and Reporting Standards of Autism Intervention Science / Shannon LAPOINT in Autism Research, 18-11 (November 2025)  

Public ISBD [article]  inAutism Research > 18-11 (November 2025) . - p.2166-2173 Titre : Maximizing the Quality and Reporting Standards of Autism Intervention Science Type de document : texte imprimé Auteurs : Shannon LAPOINT, Auteur ; Claire Brito KLEIN, Auteur ; Micheal SANDBANK, Auteur ; Kristen BOTTEMA-BEUTEL, Auteur ; Sue FLETCHER-WATSON, Auteur ; Gauri DIVAN, Auteur ; Dagmara DIMITRIOU, Auteur ; Evdokia ANAGNOSTOU, Auteur ; Mette Elmose ANDERSEN, Auteur ; Amanda BINNS, Auteur ; Tony CHARMAN, Auteur ; Jasper A. ESTABILLO, Auteur ; Stephanie M. FECTEAU, Auteur ; Anna FERRARI, Auteur ; Marie-Maude GEOFFRAY, Auteur ; Lauren H. HAMPTON, Auteur ; Sabri HERGUNER, Auteur ; Emily S. KUSCHNER, Auteur ; Jia Ying Sarah LEE, Auteur ; Julie SEGERS, Auteur ; Deanna SWAIN, Auteur ; Sarah VEJNOSKA, Auteur ; Giacomo VIVANTI, Auteur ; Chongying WANG, Auteur ; Jonathan GREEN, Auteur Article en page(s) : p.2166-2173 Langues : Anglais (eng) Mots-clés : autism  INSAR  intervention  reporting standards  special interest group  trial Index. décimale : PER Périodiques Résumé : ABSTRACT Although there are clear international standards for intervention science and reporting in healthcare, implementation and uptake have been limited within autism intervention research. To address this concern, a Special Interest Group (SIG) was convened at the International Society for Autism Research (INSAR) Annual Meetings in May 2023 and May 2024. This SIG comprised members of the autistic community, senior clinical scientists, clinicians, advanced researchers, and early career researchers, who discussed and debated quality standards for autism intervention trials. This commentary summarizes relevant literature highlighted by SIG panelists and recommendations generated from small breakout groups and larger group discussions with SIG attendees. We recommend that all journals publishing autism intervention findings, especially autism-focused journals, institute mandatory reporting practices (e.g., trial registration, protocol, analysis plan) to facilitate transparency and rigorous autism intervention science, as well as related education initiatives in support of this goal. Findings from the SIG offer practical, actionable recommendations that we advocate be systematically adopted across autism-focused journals. En ligne : https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.70126 Permalink : https://www.cra-rhone-alpes.org/cid/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=571 [article] Maximizing the Quality and Reporting Standards of Autism Intervention Science [texte imprimé] / Shannon LAPOINT, Auteur ; Claire Brito KLEIN, Auteur ; Micheal SANDBANK, Auteur ; Kristen BOTTEMA-BEUTEL, Auteur ; Sue FLETCHER-WATSON, Auteur ; Gauri DIVAN, Auteur ; Dagmara DIMITRIOU, Auteur ; Evdokia ANAGNOSTOU, Auteur ; Mette Elmose ANDERSEN, Auteur ; Amanda BINNS, Auteur ; Tony CHARMAN, Auteur ; Jasper A. ESTABILLO, Auteur ; Stephanie M. FECTEAU, Auteur ; Anna FERRARI, Auteur ; Marie-Maude GEOFFRAY, Auteur ; Lauren H. HAMPTON, Auteur ; Sabri HERGUNER, Auteur ; Emily S. KUSCHNER, Auteur ; Jia Ying Sarah LEE, Auteur ; Julie SEGERS, Auteur ; Deanna SWAIN, Auteur ; Sarah VEJNOSKA, Auteur ; Giacomo VIVANTI, Auteur ; Chongying WANG, Auteur ; Jonathan GREEN, Auteur . - p.2166-2173. Langues : Anglais (eng) in Autism Research > 18-11 (November 2025) . - p.2166-2173 Mots-clés : autism  INSAR  intervention  reporting standards  special interest group  trial Index. décimale : PER Périodiques Résumé : ABSTRACT Although there are clear international standards for intervention science and reporting in healthcare, implementation and uptake have been limited within autism intervention research. To address this concern, a Special Interest Group (SIG) was convened at the International Society for Autism Research (INSAR) Annual Meetings in May 2023 and May 2024. This SIG comprised members of the autistic community, senior clinical scientists, clinicians, advanced researchers, and early career researchers, who discussed and debated quality standards for autism intervention trials. This commentary summarizes relevant literature highlighted by SIG panelists and recommendations generated from small breakout groups and larger group discussions with SIG attendees. We recommend that all journals publishing autism intervention findings, especially autism-focused journals, institute mandatory reporting practices (e.g., trial registration, protocol, analysis plan) to facilitate transparency and rigorous autism intervention science, as well as related education initiatives in support of this goal. Findings from the SIG offer practical, actionable recommendations that we advocate be systematically adopted across autism-focused journals. En ligne : https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.70126 Permalink : https://www.cra-rhone-alpes.org/cid/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=571

Research Review: Conceptualizing and measuring ‘problem behavior’ in early intervention autism research – a project AIM secondary systematic review / Kristen BOTTEMA-BEUTEL in Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 66-11 (November 2025)  

Public ISBD [article]  inJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry > 66-11 (November 2025) . - p.1765-1780 Titre : Research Review: Conceptualizing and measuring ‘problem behavior’ in early intervention autism research – a project AIM secondary systematic review Type de document : texte imprimé Auteurs : Kristen BOTTEMA-BEUTEL, Auteur ; Ruoxi GUO, Auteur ; Jessica HINSON-WILIAMS, Auteur ; Yueyang SHEN, Auteur ; Shannon LAPOINT, Auteur ; Tiffany WOYNAROSKI, Auteur ; Micheal SANDBANK, Auteur Article en page(s) : p.1765-1780 Langues : Anglais (eng) Mots-clés : Problem behavior  restrictive and repetitive behavior  autism  early intervention  treatment  measurement Index. décimale : PER Périodiques Résumé : Background Some autistic children exhibit behavior that caregivers, clinicians, and researchers consider problematic. However, there is little consensus about the types of behaviors that should be treated as a problem and reduced via intervention. In autism intervention research, problem behaviors range from inherently harmful behaviors such as aggression and self-injury to nonnormative but not harmful behaviors associated with autism such as repetitive movements. Likewise, there are a variety of conceptualizations and measurement practices used to assess these behaviors. Methods In this secondary systematic review of group-design, nonpharmacological intervention studies for autistic children up to age eight, we explore researchers' conceptualizations of problem behavior and measurement systems to assess problem behavior. We defined problem behavior as any outcome where behaviors were targeted for reduction or elimination. A coding scheme was applied to 102 studies that met inclusion criteria for the secondary review. All studies were double coded by two independent coders. Results Sixty-two percent of studies described reducing behavior as a primary or secondary purpose of the study and/or intervention, 33% gave a rationale for targeting behaviors for reduction, and 28% offered a conceptualization of the behavior(s) they targeted. Only 8% offered a conceptual definition. The most common measures were ?off-the-shelf? measures that had undergone at least some previous validation beyond interrater reliability and that involved parent reports. For the 10 most common assessment measures, two were validated along six different validation dimensions in autistic populations. All but one full scale or subscale measured behaviors that were nonnormative but not inherently harmful, or a mix of behaviors that were inherently harmful and that were nonnormative but not inherently harmful. Conclusions Intervention researchers should provide clear definitions and rationales for targeting behaviors for reduction via intervention and should develop refined measurement tools for assessing these behaviors in collaboration with the autistic community. En ligne : https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.14177 Permalink : https://www.cra-rhone-alpes.org/cid/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=571 [article] Research Review: Conceptualizing and measuring ‘problem behavior’ in early intervention autism research – a project AIM secondary systematic review [texte imprimé] / Kristen BOTTEMA-BEUTEL, Auteur ; Ruoxi GUO, Auteur ; Jessica HINSON-WILIAMS, Auteur ; Yueyang SHEN, Auteur ; Shannon LAPOINT, Auteur ; Tiffany WOYNAROSKI, Auteur ; Micheal SANDBANK, Auteur . - p.1765-1780. Langues : Anglais (eng) in Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry > 66-11 (November 2025) . - p.1765-1780 Mots-clés : Problem behavior  restrictive and repetitive behavior  autism  early intervention  treatment  measurement Index. décimale : PER Périodiques Résumé : Background Some autistic children exhibit behavior that caregivers, clinicians, and researchers consider problematic. However, there is little consensus about the types of behaviors that should be treated as a problem and reduced via intervention. In autism intervention research, problem behaviors range from inherently harmful behaviors such as aggression and self-injury to nonnormative but not harmful behaviors associated with autism such as repetitive movements. Likewise, there are a variety of conceptualizations and measurement practices used to assess these behaviors. Methods In this secondary systematic review of group-design, nonpharmacological intervention studies for autistic children up to age eight, we explore researchers' conceptualizations of problem behavior and measurement systems to assess problem behavior. We defined problem behavior as any outcome where behaviors were targeted for reduction or elimination. A coding scheme was applied to 102 studies that met inclusion criteria for the secondary review. All studies were double coded by two independent coders. Results Sixty-two percent of studies described reducing behavior as a primary or secondary purpose of the study and/or intervention, 33% gave a rationale for targeting behaviors for reduction, and 28% offered a conceptualization of the behavior(s) they targeted. Only 8% offered a conceptual definition. The most common measures were ?off-the-shelf? measures that had undergone at least some previous validation beyond interrater reliability and that involved parent reports. For the 10 most common assessment measures, two were validated along six different validation dimensions in autistic populations. All but one full scale or subscale measured behaviors that were nonnormative but not inherently harmful, or a mix of behaviors that were inherently harmful and that were nonnormative but not inherently harmful. Conclusions Intervention researchers should provide clear definitions and rationales for targeting behaviors for reduction via intervention and should develop refined measurement tools for assessing these behaviors in collaboration with the autistic community. En ligne : https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.14177 Permalink : https://www.cra-rhone-alpes.org/cid/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=571

---

1 (1 - 3 / 3) Par page : 25 50 100 200