Talk:Applied behavior analysis

Stigmatizing wording, and downplaying the absurdity of trying to "cure" or even "treat" Autism.

This article needs a complete rewrite, best done by ACTUALLY AUTISTIC PEOPLE for the love of god. Right now I'm really mad and frustrated, but I'll come back to this when I have the energy, for now, this should suffice. We will never be cured, because we were never sick in the first place. Love to fellow neurodoverse ppl and actual allies❤️♾️ Au (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I would actually try to contact the moderators to block edits from unregistered users on this article. Seems like opinionated random(?) people off the internet. Gamma1138 (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

ABA is not just used with people on the spectrum. Joyandcaring (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

ABA practitioners often claim expertise regarding a number of complex neurotypes (including the autistic and ADHD neurotypes) and complex conditions (including PTSD and depression). Perhaps you could explain how this could possibly be so when not even those with a doctorate focusing on ABA have to take a single course examining such neurotypes and conditions from a neurological or otherwise medical perspective and certainly don't have to learn anything about neurodivergent (including Autistic or ADHD) history or culture. BTW, if you had such cultural training, you would know that the majority of the Autistic population prefers the label "Autistic" to euphemisms, like "on the spectrum." DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

No, not just, but overwhelmingly. Oolong (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It needs to be reviewed and rewritten by someone with experience in this area, like a psychiatrist, pediatrician, etc. who doesn't have a conflict of interest in this area like all the study authors related to this do.

Autism spectrum disorder as listed in the DSM can be treated to reduce challenges autistic people may face in their life, such as in cases of being non-verbal, self-harming, etc. Someone not liking how an autistic person communicates isn't a medical issue that needs treatment and any psychiatrist that isn't being paid to sell a miracle cure will tell you that. 134.215.176.89 (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

ABA was never designed to cure anyone from autism. It's the application of the science of behavior analysis to understand the function of behavior and differentially reinforce new behaviors or skills. In the context of autism, Lovaas (the founder of discrete trial teaching and early intensive behavior intervention for autism) was the first to point out that ABA does not change anything on the physiological level. And ABA is an evidence-based practice for a number of conditions, including—but not limited to—autism. ATC ^{. Talk} 00:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a disgrace for Wikipedia

I've seen a lot of crap on Wikipedia, but this article looks nothing like a Wikipedia page. What gets me is the manner in which it's written. It's like a promotional material that one can read on shady blog-sites. "There is a growing body of literature regarding the proficient implementation of and adherence". Just have a look at the CBT page. That's how a proper article on psychology is written. Since when does Wikipedia publish opinions on what's "a growing body of [...] the proficient". Gamma1138 (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Genuinely bizarre. It seems as if some of the editors have a weird vested interest in promoting it 97.118.124.225 (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

They also want to remove the "controversies and criticism" section that a lot of articles have but becomes a big problem when this article and Autism Speaks has it to cover its controversies and criticisms, like the controversies and criticisms related to it being used to abuse children. 134.215.176.89 (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

It does appear unusual that some major controversies (such as the U.S. Department of Defense's OIG finding that ABA does not meet the agency's standards of proof of efficacy for medical reimbursement) are not explicitly mentioned in this article. Often, the excuse for barring such information is that not enough scholarly secondary sources have referenced the controversy. Meanwhile, ABA industry journals (many of which are ad-supported and routinely allow authors to avoid disclosing conflicts of interest) are considered scholarly sources worthy of citation. It's this veneer of credibility (and the general societal view of Autistic people as eternal children at best and subhuman at worst) that allows ABA practitioners to pass off a cruel pseudoscience designed to take advantage of panicked and desperate parents as supportive at best and "controversial" at worst. The claim that "reforms" have been implemented backed by only a single journal article written primarily by ABA practitioners (citation 24) is especially dubious, and the false "both sides" neutrality running throughout the article is insulting to survivors of ABA (and to the Autistic community more largely). DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@DoItFastDoItUrgent Extremely anecdotal, but I swear it wasn't this bad a year ago(??). In any case, atm this article severely underrepresents and trivializes the Autistic advocacy movement and its criticism of ABA... and barely references the actual (current) concerns of ASAN/etc., which are extremely well-worded (and importantly, formalized) in ASAN's white paper. Although I know there are neurodiversity-affirming and anti-ABA formal "scholarly" papers, I honestly argue that the extent of the socio-cultural movement against ABA itself, alongside the known and referenced methodological and bias issues within the field, warrant a top-level "Critisms" section. Unburnable (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@DoItFastDoItUrgent You seem to want it this article say it's abusive and pseudoscientific because of the way it was practiced 60 years ago, and your own POV about it. ATC ^{. Talk} 03:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@ATC Peddle your "ABA-has-changed" talking points elsewhere. Even the worst abuses that your industry engaged in decades ago still are practiced today (e.g., electric-shock aversive torture at the Judge Rotenberg Center), and "kinder, gentler" methods, like planned ignoring and food-based reinforcement (which are still widely practiced and taught), are deeply harmful and dehumanizing (if not as dramatically harmful and dehumanizing as electric shocks). ABA's overriding goal has always been and always will be to force Autistic people to conform to neurotypical standards, rather than attempt to understand why we act the way we do, encourage acceptance or take a genuinely supportive role. The idea that ABA can be or has been reformed is just as ridiculous as claiming that gay conversion therapists could reform their industry if they took a kinder, gentler approach. You can't fix a house built on a broken foundation. Am I biased against ABA? Yes, in the same way any reasonable person would be biased against any other abusive pseudoscience. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Unburnable I think a lot of factors are responsible for the runaway pro-ABA bias of this and related articles. One is that the Wikipedia community (especially the handful of legacy editors who have crowned themselves Lord Protectors of all articles covering controversial topics) confuse institutional support for something with scientific validity and bend over backward to bar any information or sourcing challenging that institutional support. Another is that ABA practitioners, lobbyists and other assorted promoters have abused Wikipedia's consensus-based editing model to block any substantial changes. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It also systematically downplays the degree of controversy outside of the autistic advocacy movement. That's really important - the strong implication that it's only autistic activists who see any problem with it is wildly misleading. Oolong (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/06/us/electric-shock-fda-ban.html The only form of aversives continued to be used at the Judge Rotenberg Center was the electric shocks, which the FDA officially banned in 2020. Plus, ABA is not a synonym for EIBI for autism, and the research quality of that sub-discipline belongs in the body—not the lead. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You aren't serious, right? The FDA did ban it, and the Judge Rotenberg Center successfully got the ban overturned on a legal technicality, which required an act of Congress to correct. Now that the law has been changed, the FDA needs to implement a new ban, which it has not yet done. As someone who apparently follows ABA quite closely (and I assume is employed in the field), you couldn't possibly have been unaware of that. If you were unaware of that, I'm truly speechless.

https://www.wcvb.com/article/5-investigates-judge-rotenberg-center-shock-therapy/42526127 DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I was not aware that the FDA law was overturned and that residential school still uses the aversive electric shocks. I do not personally believe in the approach, as I view it as a form of torture (in any circumstance). Regardless, one particular school that still uses electric shocks (JRC) has no relevance to this article, but it could be briefly mentioned in a section of the aversive therapy article from an encyclopedic, non-biased viewpoint, in accordance to WP:POV guidelines. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The JRC's practices are absolutely relevant to the article when ABA International, one of the main ABA bodies in the USA, persistently invited representatives from the JRC to give talks defending their practices, year after year, long after they had been denounced by the UN rapporteur and many others as torture. They finally condemned it in 2022, but this will remain relevant for a long time yet. The BACB appears to have remained silent on this issue, and that's troubling too. Oolong (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Practitioners vs. Lecturers in the field

I saw that my edit was changed because there was no indication that the authors were practitioners, which is fair enough, that was poorly phrased on my part. However, the authors of the cited blog post do refer to behavior analysis as "our field" in post, so they're also not observers from outside the field. I think it's important to indicate who the criticism was made by, just as the preceding sentence indicated that the comparison was advanced by a "social worker and researcher", because otherwise the phrasing seems to imply that the criticism of that comparison came from parties with no stakes in the conversation - which is untrue. It's from a blog post by behavior analysts. Would "lecturers in the field of behavior analysis" be acceptable? 173.230.161.116 (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Good catch on the ambiguous wording of the original passage, and thank you for going back in and making the eventual "lecturer" change, despite the reverter's non-response. Although there will be always be false neutrality in this article (e.g., portraying the opinions of ABA industry insiders as equally valid as those of ABA survivors and other critics), at least we can point out the bias of industry-written sources so the casual reader doesn't mistake industry propaganda for broader consensus. To be quite frank, sources like the one in question (a blog entry written by ABA lecturers that includes a self-citation) shouldn't be cited on Wikipedia to begin with. Any RBT or BCBA can write up a blog post feigning horror at the thought of an ABA practitioner ever doing anything unethical. It doesn't make their opinion noteworthy. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Add Use in Public Schools

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 states that when a child whose behavior interferes with the child's learning or the learning of others the IEP (Individual Educational Plan) Team consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports. Typically a Functional Behavior Analysis (FBA) is conducted which results in a Behavior Improvement Plan (BIP). There is a lot more to it but this is a basic introduction to the idea that elements of Applied Behavior Analysis are routinely used in public schools and is governed by federal law. Joyandcaring (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Promotional Talking Point

I propose deleting the (grammatically incorrect and improperly punctuated) sentence in the History section that reads, "Lovaas' work went on to be recognized by the US Surgeon General in 1999, and his research were replicated in university and private settings."

Frequently, ABA practitioners will claim that the U.S. Surgeon General has "endorsed" or "recommends" ABA. Even this more neutral "recognized" wording distorts the facts.

Specifically, former U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher included a single paragraph in a 1999 report hundreds of pages long regarding the topic of "mental health," which praised Lovaas and his research. The paragraph in Satcher's report was written in a clearly promotional style and contained no substantive discussion or analysis.

The U.S. Surgeon General has never publicly mentioned ABA while in office before or since, and their office does not currently maintain any official guidance regarding its efficacy, ethics or implementation.

The fact that those practicing, teaching or studying ABA frequently bring up this talking point (including in the cited journal articles) does not make it any less misleading or promotional (or any more noteworthy). DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

That clearly sourced the Surgeon General's report endorsing ABA in 1999. You seem to want to leave out any source that goes against your viewpoint, and instead rely on biased newsources like Fortune to describe a science instead of many credible scientific journals describing both sides to the controversy. You seem to want to keep the ones the align with your opinion and leave out the ones that don't. Either way, 1999 was a very long time ago by now. ATC ^{. Talk} 04:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You're right. The year 1999 was a very long time ago, yet, as I mentioned, ABA practitioners still, to this day, inflate the relevance of that single paragraph. I am not disputing that the paragraph in question exists. I am questioning whether it is of sufficient historical or scientific relevance to mention. Also, I think you're walking on thin ice accusing me of trying to wipe the article of pro-ABA sources when you still haven't given a thorough explanation of why you believe Fortune (or the specific Fortune article you keep deleting from the list of citations) does not meet Wikipedia's standards. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The surgeon general's 1999 report was not the only source that endorsed it. Pediatrics—the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics—in 2007 wrote, "The effectiveness of ABA-based intervention for autism has been well-documented through 5 decades of research using single subject methodology and in controlled studies of comprehensive early intensive behavioral intervention programs in university and community settings. Children who receive early intensive behavioral treatment have been shown to make substantial, sustained gains in IQ, language, academic performance, and adaptive behavior as well as some measures of social behavior, and their outcomes have been significantly better than those of children in control groups." https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/120/5/1162/71080/Management-of-Children-With-Autism-Spectrum?autologincheck=redirected

ABA is an evidence based practice and the research shows there is different learning styles

Also, ABA is not a therapy only used for autism (it's the application of the science of behavior analysis to change behavior and to understand its' function and causes), and the verbal and physical aversives are currently outdated as well. There is also a lot of misinformation about ABA in this article.

Please take a look at these sources:

Bringell, A., Chenausky, K. V., Song, H., Zhu, J., Suo, C., & Morgan, A. T. (2018). Communication interventions for autism spectrum disorder in minimally verbal children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 11(11).

Dillenburger, K., & Keenan, M. (2009). None of the As in ABA stand for autism: Dispelling the myths. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, (1), 1-3.

Dimian, A. F., Symons, F. J., & Wolff, J. J. (2021). Delay to early intensive behavioral intervention and educational outcomes for a Medicaid-enrolled cohort of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51(4), 1054–1066.

Jobin, A. (2020). Varied treatment response in young children with autism: A relative comparison of structured and naturalistic behavioral interventions. Autism, 24(2), 338-351.

Kasari, C., Shire, S. Shih, W., Landa, R., Levato, L., & Smith, T. (2023). Spoken language outcomes in limited language preschoolers with autism and global developmental delay: RCT of early intervention approaches. Autism Research, 16(6), 1236-1246.

Keenan, M., & Dillenburger, K. (2011). When all you have is a hammer …: RCTs and hegemony in science. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(1), 1–13.

Langh, U., Perry, A., Eikeseth, S., & Bolte, S. (2021). Quality of early intensive behavioral intervention as a predictor of children's outcome. Behavior Modification, 45(6), 911-928.

Myers, S. M., & Plauché Johnson, C. (2007). Management of children with autism spectrum disorders. Pediatrics, 120, 1162-1182.

Paul, R., Campbell, D., Gilbert, K., & Tsiouri, I. (2013). Comparing spoken language treatments for minimally verbal preschoolers with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43(2), 418-431.

Roane, H., Ringdahl, J., & Falcomata, T. Clinical and organizational applications of applied behavior analysis (Practical resources for the mental health professional). Weltham, MA: Academic Press/Elsevier, 2015.

Smith, T., & Iadarola, S. (2015). Evidence base update for autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 44(6), 897-922. ATC ^{. Talk} 22:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

If you are genuinely soliciting consensus on a proposed change, you should point out what specific information is in need of correction. Your mention of the presence of misinformation is too vague to act on.

Additionally, I have reverted your last two edits for the reasons stated in the edit summaries.

Please do not make edits that are identical or substantially similar to edits you or anyone else proposed in the dispute resolution closed on March 1, 2023 without first gaining consensus on the article talk page. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Some of those sources you added back go against WP:POV and WP:SOURCES. Newsources, such as Fortune, are implying a point of view and, in general, Fortune isn't a valid resource for Wiki standards. ATC ^{. Talk} 22:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Please be more specific than "some." Regarding the Fortune article, the guidance on sources you cited states the following.

"Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

University-level textbooks

Books published by respected publishing houses

Mainstream (non-fringe) magazines, including specialty ones

Reputable newspapers"

Fortune has not been flagged by the Wikipedia community as a deprecated news source and can certainly be classified as a mainstream magazine. If you have a specific criticism of the news article, itself, which you feel justifies its removal, please bring up that specific criticism.

Also, citing a source that includes criticism of ABA does not, in and of itself, violate Wikipedia standards regarding injecting POV into an article. If it did, no Wikipedia article could include any mention of controversy or debate regarding any topic. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 03:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It appears you've once again deleted the Fortune citation without cause (merely stating a source is biased without documenting why is not cause) or talk-page consensus and you still don't appear to comprehend the definition of "controversial" (or are deliberately warping its meaning to question ABA critics' perceptions). If, rather than discuss why you believe these changes were justified, you'd prefer to take this to a formal dispute, that's fine with me. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Please stop deleting the Fortune citation and rephrasing the sentence about ABA being controversial (to make it sound like its status as a controversial subject is a matter of opinion) without talk-page consensus. MidnightAlarm (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Also Lovaas is not the founder of ABA, which this article keeps talking about. He developed discrete trial training and early intensive behavior intervention for autism. Skinner is its original founder, as are Baer, Wolf, and Risley. ATC ^{. Talk} 02:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The claim that Ivar Lovaas was not the originator of ABA seems to be an increasingly common talking point within the industry, but it is no more than that - a talking point. While Lovaas' work was heavily based on Skinner's previous attempts to manipulate the behavior of rats, pigeons and other animals using the principles of radical behaviorism, Skinner did not invent ABA. Trying to claim that other early ABA practitioners are more responsible for the creation of the industry than Lovaas was rings equally hollow. While ABA practitioners may find it inconvenient to defend or wave away Lovaas' dehumanization and abuse of both the Autistic and LGBTQIA2S+ communities, that inconvenience does not change the fact that Lovaas was the father of ABA. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 03:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Lovaas was one founding father of ABA when applied to autism (he really developed Discrete Trial Training and Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention). Skinner developed Behavior Analysis, and ABA is the application of this science outside the laboratory to a variety of situations (i.e., applied animal behavior, contingency management of substance abuse, organizational behavior management, acceptance and commitment therapy (which uses mindfulness in clinical counseling or to promote diet and exercise), habit reversal training for tics, schoolwide positive behavior support, classroom instruction for typically developing students, pediatric feeding therapy, contact desensitization for phobias, etc.). The main founders of ABA were Baer, Wolf, and Risley (Lovaas' college professors) who founded the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis at the University of Kansas in 1968. Therefore, it is most accurate to say Baer, Wolf, and Risley developed ABA. To add, some of the verbal and physical aversives Lovaas used at UCLA in the 1960s are currently outdated and it's currently against the Behavior Analyst Certification Board's guidelines to use ABA in the form of gay conversion therapy. ABA is an evidence-based practice, there is different learning styles as to which form of ABA kids with autism acquire language from, and when it comes to DTT/EIBI and clinical interventions in general, RCTs are not the only valid form of research designs. You need to design the study differently to show different variables. Your view that ABA does not teach them useful skills is POV and a number of studies (based on valid data collection) for over 50 years suggest otherwise.

You're also using a news source to suggest a view point. This Conchrane review reflecting the 2014 study at the Yale Child Study Center on the different learning styles that kids with autism respond to here: Bringell, A., Chenausky, K. V., Song, H., Zhu, J., Suo, C., & Morgan, A. T. (2018). Communication interventions for autism spectrum disorder in minimally verbal children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 11(11). As well as: Kasari, C., Shire, S. Shih, W., Landa, R., Levato, L., & Smith, T. (2023). Spoken language outcomes in limited language preschoolers with autism and global developmental delay: RCT of early intervention approaches. Autism Research, 16(6), 1236-1246. as examples, are much more credible and valid than Fortune. ATC ^{. Talk} 03:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Also most ABA autism clinics are less intensive, and are naturalistic, child-led and play-based now (and Lovaas' form of ABA is only used for nonverbal kids with lower receptive language skills). Lovaas' therapy was a lot more than teaching eye contact, and fine and gross motor skills. For example, the child could be asked to "point to something you wear", drink from a cup, imitate a single toy play action, etc. Not only did I do very well from the program when I was young (which got me to speak and respond to my name being called by the time I turned 4 and a half), I've been to an ABA autism clinic. A kid's parents told me "We tried speech therapy for many years and saw no progress and just a year of ABA at the clinic, his vocabulary exploded and he started speaking." A friend since middle school said they tried ABA with her little cousin and it didn't work nor did he do well from it. Years later, when we were in high school, she said her little cousin received it from another therapist, and he did really well from it and learned a lot. Even Temple Grandin endorses ABA (and noted that the speech therapy program she had as a young girl consisted a lot of what's seen in high quality ABA therapy program today). There is still a lot of misinformation about ABA. ATC ^{. Talk} 03:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You're inadvertently highlighting one of many major issues with ABA (and with its practitioners not having any formal training in autistic neurology). ASD is a developmental disability (not a behavioral one), meaning that autistic people often meet developmental milestones at different times than their neurotypical peers. You have absolutely no proof, for example, that that child's "vocabulary exploded" because of ABA. They might have simply not been ready to audibly speak until that point. On the same token, you may not have been ready to speak until you turned 4.5. This is the kind of thing RCTs (particularly those with large sample sizes) are helpful in ruling out.

It's also worth mentioning that ABA is very much an oralist discipline that focuses heavily on trying to force non-speaking Autistics to audibly speak (while ignoring or even discouraging alternative forms of communication, like sign language or AAC use).

As for Temple Grandin, you're correct; she's endorsed certain forms of ABA. She's also refused to explicitly state vaccines don't turn children autistic, because she claims she finds the personal anecdotes of the anti-vaxxer parents she's spoken with to be too compelling to dismiss (making her the darling of many anti-vaxxer groups, who sell books about her and point to her for validation). Despite her professional background and lived experience, Grandin is not a reliable scientific source on autistic neurology, ABA or vaccine science. It's deeply unfortunate that neurotypicals (and even many Autistic people, such as yourself) have hoisted her up as some kind of pillar of the Autistic community, when she's no more than a token who spends her time spreading misinformation. I don't consider "Temple Grandin says…" to be a valid argument in any context. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong. According to the American Speech Language-Hearing Association website, the picture exchange communication system (PECS; an AAC) is an evidence-based form of ABA, and sign language is widely used in verbal behavior and ABA programs as well. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@ATC You've had weeks to respond to requests to revert the weasel language you inserted about Autistic advocates "considering" ABA controversial and to reinsert the Fortune article citation. Thus far, your only response has been to baselessly claim that citing mainstream media sources violates Wikipedia policy. You've also blatantly ignored the guidance of the editors who oversaw the dispute filed against you by another editor roughly a year ago (namely, to seek talk-page consensus before making any such changes to the introductory paragraph). I have no choice but to now file a new formal dispute. I will notify you on your user talk page once the dispute has been opened. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ANTH 193 - Behavioral Science in Practice

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2024 and 13 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ZhengQiTan, AndrewOseguera (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Dkhora (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk archives

Shouldn't there be an automatic link to the archives added at the top of the page when the talk gets archived??

I guess this is the most recent archive: Talk:Applied behavior analysis/Archive 4 Oolong (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)