Correction to "Behavior Analysts' Use of Treatments for Individuals with Autism"

Introduction

In behavioral research, accuracy is crucial. Even small errors can impact how professionals make treatment decisions for individuals with autism. A recent correction to the article Behavior Analysts' Use of Treatments for Individuals with Autism (Marshall et al., 2023) sheds light on this issue, ensuring that behavior analysts base their work on the most reliable data.

This blog post will:

• Summarize the original study’s key points.
• Detail the nature of the corrections made in 2024.
• Explain why these corrections matter for the field of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA).

Background on the Original Study

The original study, published in Behavior Analysis in Practice (Marshall et al., 2023), aimed to examine the treatment approaches used by behavior analysts when working with individuals with autism. Specifically, the study investigated:

1. The most commonly used interventions.
2. The ranking of treatments based on practitioner preferences.
3. Whether behavior analysts rely on evidence-based practices.

The research highlighted that Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) remains the most widely used and evidence-supported treatment for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, it also noted variations in treatment selections based on practitioner certification levels and experience.

Nature of the Correction

A correction published in 2024 (Marshall et al., 2024) identified errors in Table 9 of the original study. These errors occurred during the production stage and misrepresented key data points related to treatment preferences.

The primary corrections involved:

• Adjusting the rankings and percentage values for various treatment options.
• Correcting the survey's unintended inclusion of PEAK as a treatment option.
• Clarifying the first-choice treatment selections made by behavior analysts.

These corrections ensure that the study accurately reflects practitioners' treatment preferences and maintains its credibility as a resource for the ABA community.

Table 9: Before and After

Incorrect Table 9 Issues

The initial version of Table 9 included the following errors:

1. Misrepresented ranking percentages – Some treatments were incorrectly ranked, giving a distorted view of preferences.
2. Inclusion of PEAK – A software dropdown error allowed PEAK, a skills assessment tool rather than a treatment, to be listed as an intervention.
3. Inaccurate first-choice selections – Errors in data processing altered the representation of preferred treatments among behavior analysts.

Corrected Table 9 Adjustments

After correction, the data in Table 9 more accurately represented the findings:

1. Revised rankings for ABA, PECS, and other treatments – Ensuring the rankings align with the actual survey responses.
2. Adjusted percentage scores by certification level – Providing an accurate breakdown of treatment preferences across Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBAs), Registered Behavior Technicians (RBTs), and other professionals.
3. Removal of unintended PEAK entries – Preventing confusion between intervention tools and assessment methods.

Significance of These Corrections

Correcting these errors is essential for several reasons:

• Protecting study validity – Researchers and practitioners rely on accurate data to make informed decisions.
• Influencing treatment choices – Misreported data could lead to practitioners using treatments they believe were preferred by a larger number of behavior analysts.
• Upholding ethical ABA practices – Evidence-based treatment decisions must come from reliable sources.

For behavior analysts, these corrections are a reminder to critically evaluate data sources before modifying their clinical practices.

Key Takeaways for Behavior Analysts

The correction to this study reinforces several key lessons for professionals in the field:

1. Verify research findings – Even peer-reviewed studies can have errors, so staying informed about updates and corrections is crucial.
2. Prioritize evidence-based treatments – ABA remains the most well-supported method for autism intervention, and behavior analysts should rely on reputable data when making treatment choices.
3. Be critical of survey data – Errors in data collection, such as incorrect dropdown options, can introduce misleading results.
4. Check corrections and updates in published research – Modifying practice based on incorrect findings can have long-term consequences for clients.
5. Always follow best practices for ethical treatment decisions – Using corrected and verified research ensures the best outcomes for individuals with autism.

Final Thoughts & Implications for Future Research

This correction highlights the importance of rigorous peer review, transparency, and accountability in academic publishing. It also serves as a crucial reminder that even well-intended research can have errors that require corrections.

For behavior analysts, staying updated on research findings—including corrections—is a key part of professional responsibility. By maintaining an evidence-based perspective, practitioners can continue providing effective, ethical treatment options for individuals with autism.

If you’d like to read the full correction, you can access it here: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-024-00976-4.

AI Research Assistant

See Full Bio