Mentions
Extended reach
Total likes
Video views
AI synopsis
The group of discussions clearly shows strong skepticism toward the scientific validity of early intensive behavioral interventions for autism, highlighting concerns about publication bias, poor research quality, and lack of rigorous trials, with phrases like 'questionable goals' and 'low/very low' research quality emphasizing their critical tone and depth of analysis.
Most discussions express strong disagreement with the effectiveness of the EIBI approach, citing systematic reviews and expert opinions that question its scientific validity.
The posts demonstrate high interest, referencing citations like Cochrane reviews and debates around published research, indicating active engagement with the topic.
Many discussions critically analyze methodologies, such as calling out publication bias, lack of randomized trials, and questionable research quality, showing deep engagement.
The conversations have high impact potential as they question widespread practices and call for reevaluation of evidence-based claims, which could influence policy or practice revisions.
In seiner Antwort auf die erste Frage zitiert er das Cochrane Review von 2018. Und, tut mir leid, selbst das, was Vyse schreibt, ist nicht geeignet, mein Vertrauen in die ABA-Forschung zu erhöhen. 15/x https://t.co/HM3UTX2Xa2 https://t.co/b9x3ooX2xF
Low standards for #ABAResesech: Self-publication, self-citation, questionable or no independent peer review and no retraction. Perhaps that’s one reason why despite 100s of #ABA research papers, quality is assessed low/very low: https://t.co/GlBm7q4gGN https://t.co/i9oq1kHg0y
The Cochrane Report; “weak evidence that intensive early behavioral intervention an effective therapy.” @NIMHDirector https://t.co/lsvTnvHFQo
@autistinquisitr @d_a_keldsen @A4AOntario Ascientific? Like those supporting the use of EIBI you mean? https://t.co/2HuBa1qGCw
Link update - #systematicreview "Early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) for young children with autism spectrum disorders" is now at https://t.co/CdKAPLMCE9 https://t.co/YGNuh7XLLc
@ndcritical @DeviantLissy @crippledcommie The article talks about #ABA progs and links to the Cochrane meta analysis of EIBI research review which it defines as intensive (more 20 hrs week) ABA. Conclusion: Low to very low quality. #ABAResearch Full research paper here: https://t.co/N1IpM531ca
This week, the Brazilian Ministry of Health introduced a new care framework for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). While some aspects align with scientific understanding, many points raise concerns that may lead to…
How can EEF also ignore other reviews https://t.co/SLXZoutTOE https://t.co/AIXBTpWVGf Which both suggest bias, COI and unreported or inadequate reporting adverse effects and long term harm.
Não existem evidências significativas de que a tal da "intervenção preconce" com base em ABA seja eficaz para "tratar" o autismo, mas você não precisa acreditar em mim, leia uma revisão sistemática publicada na Cochrane: https://t.co/92mQF0PJJ0
In seiner Antwort auf die erste Frage zitiert er das Cochrane Review von 2018. Und, tut mir leid, selbst das, was Vyse schreibt, ist nicht geeignet, mein Vertrauen in die ABA-Forschung zu erhöhen. 15/x https://t.co/HM3UTX2Xa2 https://t.co/b9x3ooX2xF
De evidence-base voor ABA-programma's is overweldigend slecht en wordt als laag/zeer laag beschouwd en dit werd nogmaals bevestigd door een Cochrane-review uit mei 2018 https://t.co/QbT9gMjQQ4
@LSJRWC @ErikaDNolte @BadassBitchMA @skinnerismyBF @cadiulus Like this significant advancement? The Cochrane Library, despite exercising well beyond its usual diligence, has not found scientific quality evidence that ABA works. Their findings strongly suggest publication bias in favour of ABA in autism research. https://t.co/YdnXKE0bUW
#ABA. Want some research-based evidence? Then read this! https://t.co/8sZ5Yo8lZH
@Bemorte The paediatric industry would do well to read what the Cochrane Library has to say about it. Screenshot of my favourite part: characteristics of key excluded (because they’re scientifically worthless) studies. Take a good look at the third one down! https://t.co/YdnXKE0bUW https://t.co/biZKNUnKSJ
@TArmstrongNDP I suggest the NDP read this article and reconsider. Lovaas himself didn’t actually prove ABA effective. He would have to need to do a randomized control trial for that. He didn’t. https://t.co/YdnXKE0bUW https://t.co/91JNvKYe8K
@NeuroRebel https://t.co/bGEhHuZvPK
The ABA industry needs to take #6 to heart. How could it possibly be “unethical” to conduct a randomized controlled trial for ABA when there has never been one in the first place? #ABAisAbuse and it’s dishonest to say it’s “evidence-based”. https://t.co/ZwAn0wpsju https://t.co/brSQRDuUm2
I’m not exaggerating about the last point. I recommend the whole article, but this brilliant point-form note about why the Cochrane Library couldn’t include Lovaas’ study in its literature review deserves so much more fanfare than it gets. Behold: https://t.co/ZwAn0wpsju
@qanondenier @autismcrisis You have missed significant research on ABA: No understanding of risks, no good evidence of effectiveness, CoIs, questionable goals , no controls, poor quality etc etc. Why spend £££s. What next stem cell? https://t.co/I9dNKDsce1 https://t.co/8PWBOZezcN https://t.co/UqSMWbjM9F
@PatriquinCarla #ABAresearch is highly controversial. Independent research bodies class its quality as low/v low. ABA peer review does not mean much, eg https://t.co/JTfDEqNeyy https://t.co/jDEouSMjAl Important thread about a review of ABA just published the UK by NIHR https://t.co/KpEsjULMKo
The Cochrane Report; “weak evidence that intensive early behavioral intervention an effective therapy.” @NIMHDirector https://t.co/lsvTnvHFQo
RT @milton_damian: @autistinquisitr @d_a_keldsen @A4AOntario Ascientific? Like those supporting the use of EIBI you mean? https://t.co/2HuB…
@autistinquisitr @d_a_keldsen @A4AOntario Ascientific? Like those supporting the use of EIBI you mean? https://t.co/2HuBa1qGCw
@ndcritical @DeviantLissy @crippledcommie The article talks about #ABA progs and links to the Cochrane meta analysis of EIBI research review which it defines as intensive (more 20 hrs week) ABA. Conclusion: Low to very low quality. #ABAResearch Full research paper here: https://t.co/N1IpM531ca
RT @campbellreviews: Link update - #systematicreview "Early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) for young children with autism spectru…
Link update - #systematicreview "Early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) for young children with autism spectrum disorders" is now at https://t.co/CdKAPLMCE9 https://t.co/YGNuh7XLLc
RT @abaukdiscussion: Low standards for #ABAResesech: Self-publication, self-citation, questionable or no independent peer review and no ret…
Low standards for #ABAResesech: Self-publication, self-citation, questionable or no independent peer review and no retraction. Perhaps that’s one reason why despite 100s of #ABA research papers, quality is assessed low/very low: https://t.co/GlBm7q4gGN https://t.co/i9oq1kHg0y
@ResnetSharland The intensity one needs to use ABA to train a person without regard to cognitive differences makes its efficacy highly questionable. Supported by Cochrane updated review of the evidence of ABA/EIBI https://t.co/JTfDEqNeyy
@mrhunsaker @PeripheralMinds @AnnMemmott @Paulwady One very significant problem is that there is no funding. To understand the nature of the poor quality of ABA research look at the NICE guidelines on autism https://t.co/hXvWz1Q8kb And recent Cochrane update: https://t.co/C5OoUMy26U
“Early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) for young children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD)” https://t.co/LImVWUEFBO
RT @abaukdiscussion: @nwalton2502 @NikolaNeenaj @meowcarriemeow @lynchauthor @NeuroRebel @Autism @stevesilberman The important thing is tha…
VV
AC
KW
DM
TC
M
P
A
I
TD
AB
A
AH
H
FC
DM