ABA Info 
The Effectiveness of ABA
For every child with autism, every waking moment is important. A large majority of a child’s time and resources should be spent engaged in therapies that have been shown, through scientific research, to produce the most lasting beneficial effects. Every moment the child spends in therapies that are not effective, minimally effective or even worse counterproductive is a moment he/she could have spent participating in a treatment that has a known probability of success… When the child is very young, those may be moments that are lost forever. It appears that there is a relatively narrow “window of opportunity” for young autistic children during which the most effective available treatment- Applied Behavior Analysis- can mean the difference for many between lifelong severe disability and some approximation to normal functioning.
The following was taken from the book “A Work in Progress” by Ron Leaf and John McEachin.
Autism is a severe disruption of the normal developmental processes that occurs in the first two years of life. It leads to impaired language, play, cognitive, social and adaptive functioning, causing children to fall farther and farther behind their peers as they grow older. The cause is unknown, but evidence points to physiological causes such as neurological abnormalities to certain areas of the brain.
Autistic children do not learn in the same way that other children normally learn. They seem unable to understand simple verbal and nonverbal communication, are confused by sensory input, and withdraw in varying degrees from people and the world around them. They become preoccupied with certain activities and objects that interfere with development of play. They show little interest in other children and tend not to learn by observing and imitating others.
Despite the disruption of learning processes, behavioral scientists, relying on the principles of learning theory, have developed effective methods for teaching autistic children. Three decades of research by Dr. Ivar Lovaas and his associates at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) have convincingly demonstrated that intensive, early intervention can significantly improve the functioning of autistic children. Two follow-up studies, published in 1987 and 1993, have shown that 9 of the 19 children who received intensive behavioral treatment were able to successfully complete regular education classes and were indistinguishable from their peers on measures of IQ, adaptive skills and emotional functioning. Even among those children who did not attain the best outcome, there were significant gains in language, social, self-help and play skills, and all but two of the children developed functional speech.
Here is a simplified breakdown of the Lovaas results:
| Treatment Group | Showed Major improvement | Showed Some improvement | Showed little or no improvement |
| 40 hours a week of | 9 | 8 | 2 |
| 0-10 hours a week of | 1 | 18 | 21 |
The children in this study were up to three years old when treatment started. They received an AVERAGE of 40 hours per week of individual treatment provided by UCLA undergraduates who were supervised by graduate students and psychologists. Treatment lasted an average of two years or longer.
Although the work by Lovaas is the most frequently cited, there is other evidence that ABA can result in substantial benefit. Harris and Handleman (1994) reviewed several research studies that showed that more than 50% of autistic children who participated in comprehensive early intervention programs using ABA were successfully integrated into non-handicapped classrooms with many requiring little ongoing treatment.
From Lisa Jo Rudy,
Your Guide to Autism.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
About.com Health's Disease and Condition content is reviewed by our Medical Review Board
Q. Can ABA Cure Autism? I've read stories about intensive ABA "recovering" autistic children, but I've also heard that there is, as yet, no cure for autism. Which is true?
A. The following answer was supplied by researchers at the Lovaas Institute:
SHORT ANSWER
Both are true.
LONG ANSWER
In 2000, Dr. Lovaas wrote a paper entitled “Clarifying Comments on the UCLA Young Autism Project.” In it, he discussed the difference between the use of the word “cure” and “recovered.”
He states, "The term 'cure' implies removal of the original cause of the problem and because the cause of autism is unknown, claiming a cure would certainly be unjustified and unethical. In contrast, it is possible to enable a child with autism to achieve normal functioning without finding a cure for autism, just as it is possible for a physician to recover patients to normal functioning without having found a cure for their illness.
Hodgkin’s disease is a case in point." (Lovaas, 2000)
The term “recovered” was used in Table 3 of the Lovaas 1987 research article and within the text. Children included in this outcome group tested within the normal range for IQ and successfully completed first grade in a regular education classroom without an aide. Further, on the basis of testing, “the recovered children showed no permanent intellectual or behavioral deficits and their language appears normal.” (Lovaas 1987, p. 8)
Whether or not the term “recovered” should be used to describe the children who obtained the best outcomes in the 1987 study continues to be debated. On one hand, Dr. Lovaas himself cautioned in the study that “…questions can be asked about whether the children truly recovered from autism” (p. 8) adding that “…certain residual deficits may remain in the normal functioning group that…can only be isolated on closer psychological assessment, particularly as these children grow older” (p. 8). On the other hand, in the 1993 follow up study, these same children were reassessed at 13 years of age. The recovered children were put through a more lengthy series of tests, including an examination of areas likely to be difficult for children with autism of average intelligence (e.g., compulsive or ritualistic behavior, empathy for and interest in others, a sense of humor) (McEachin, 1993, p. 363). The study found that 8 out of 9 of the children continued to be successful in regular education classes and were indistinguishable from their peers on all of the tests that were conducted.
New testing measures continue to be developed. Recent examples include the ADOS - Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule - and the Theory of Mind test. Ongoing evaluations will continue to support or clarify the use of the term “recovered.” For example, the 48% of children in the best outcome group from the 2005 replication research were tested using the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised, and parent and teacher rating scales were intended to look for “residual signs” of autism (Sallows, 2005). Further, a follow-up evaluation with these tests is planned for the 29% of children in the best outcome group from the 2006 replication research. Finally, the children in the 1987 study have been followed into adulthood and an evaluation of their current status should be published in the near future.
Cohen, Howard, Amerine-Dickens, Mila, Smith, Tristram. (2006). Early Intensive Behavioral Treatment: Replication of the UCLA Model in a Community Setting. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 27 (2), 145-155.
Lovaas, O. I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in young autistic children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 3-9.
Lovaas, O. I. (2000). Clarifying Comments on the UCLA Young Autsim Project. University of California, Los Angeles. Department of Psychology.
McEachin, J. J., Smith, T., & Lovaas, O. I. (1993). Long-term outcome for children with autism who received early intensive behavioral treatment. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97 (4), 359-372.
Sallows, Glen O. & Graupner, Tamlynn D. (2005). Intensive Behavioral Treatment for Children with Autism: Four-Year Outcome and Predictors. American Journal on Mental Retardation,110 (6), 417-438.