Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1979
Editorial: Special Issue on Behavioral Research The past decade has brought a striking increase of research directed toward better understanding and treatment of autism and related disorders. This has resulted in new questions and issues, better treatment techniques, and advances in knowledge. However, the increase in research interest and productivity has also made it more difficult to differentiate new information of lasting significance from findings that are trivial or cannot be replicated. In order to offer our readers a clearer understanding of significance in the growing research volume, we are planning to publish a yearly special issue, devoted to a major area of concern and organized according to one of the models of productive research or theory. The guest editor for each special issue will invite contributions from the most distinguished researchers in that area in order to provide both historical perspective and studies considered most significant by researchers in the special area. It is therefore no accident that this first special issue is devoted to the behavioral perspective. Behaviorists have provided some of the most significant advances in the treatment of children with developmental disorders. Our guest editor, Laura Schreibman, has done a superb job in bringing t o g e t h e r the best behavioral research available, in order to illustrate the diversity of analyses and treatment approaches in this area. Although each paper represents an individual contribution, they are closely related in their careful and systematic approach to the study of developmentally disordered behavior. The issue begins with a historical perspective on the behavioral treatment of autism by Ivar Lovaas, the individual who is most often associated with the behavior modification of autistic children. He discusses the "behavioral m o d e l " versus the "disease m o d e l " from the embattled viewpoint of one who has been in the midst of conflict for many years. By reducing the field to only two models of study, his introductory comments give the appearance of oversimplified polemic. There are, after all, other research models such as epidemiology, cognitive development, psycholinguistics, and ethology, to name only a few. There are also complex issues of social interaction, special education, mainstreaming, community organization, and biomedical processes that are clarified by other than behavioral 311 0162-3257/79/1200-0311503.00/0 9 1979 Plenum Publishing Corporation
312
Special Issue on Behavioral Research
concepts and methods. Some of these will be topics of subsequent special issues. Unless some of our readers misunderstand Lovaas's introductory comments, they may be read as representing two kinds of behaviorism. The first part of his comments represents the evangelical enthusiast, impelled to ignore the system's limits, while the second part represents the behaviorist who feels accepted as a social scientist and who is open to questions and changes in theory as directed by rational inferences from empirical research data. Although it can be easily forgotten when presented with a special journal issue like this one, one must be cautious in using any single research model or treatment approach in the area of developmental disorders. The concentration on one model can lead to excesses such as the tendency to deny the usefulness of all other approaches to understanding and treatment. In the past, parents of autistic children were frequently misunderstood because of an uncritical emphasis on the effects of the child's early social environment. This one-sided emphasis was not confined to psychoanalytic theorists; in fact, it could also be found in some behaviorists' exclusive emphasis on parents' inappropriate reinforcement history. The concentration on one model may also ignore troublesome limitations. For instance, there are obvious limits to the single case study design. Even when it can demonstrate the effectiveness of a behavioral manipulation with one child, it does not necessarily clarify the limits of the techniques or the characteristics of the subject to whom it might not apply. Moreover, we must not forget that unrealistic expectations of cure and treatment effectiveness are promoted by zealots of any theoretical persuasion who are too eager for support from patients or from granting agencies. Such limits are implicitly recognized in the second part of Lovaas's introduction. He reviews the substantial contribution made by behaviorists to the advancement of knowledge, including operant techniques for teaching imitation and for reducing self-destructive and self-stimulatory behavior. This serves as an admirable introduction to the papers selected for this special issue. The broad range of papers presented here well illustrates that, contrary to the opinions of some, the behavioral approach is not single minded. The first two papers on the behavioral analysis of language are particularly important for the populations addressed by our journal, since severe communication disorders are so prevalent. The paper by Goetz, Schuler, and Sailor serves as a fine example of how behaviorists systematically analyze the different components of language training in order to refine and improve treatment procedures. Carr's paper represents a
Special Issue on Behavioral Research
313
thoughtful and objective review of the advantages and pitfalls of sign language as a means of teaching functional language in nonverbal children. While some still see behavior modification as the application of specific consequences ("reward and punishment"), the field is concerned with all aspects of learning. One area that is receiving increasingly needed attention is that of stimulus control--analysis of the effect of antecedent stimuli on behavior. The Etzel and LeBlanc study offers a sophisticated example of a systematic analysis of stimuli used in teaching discriminations to children who have difficulty learning. Koegel, Schreibman, Britten, and Laitinen present a study that continues the directed line of research on stimulus overselectivity in autism. The study is a hopeful one, showing how this serious deficit may be reduced. Foxx, Snyder, and Schroeder present data on an overcorrection procedure for two profoundly retarded adults in an institutional setting. The work demonstrates how effective the technique can be with a population and in a setting that are both very resistant to change. This is another in a series of important contributions by Dr. Foxx and his colleagues that are not only of theoretical importance but also of direct applied value. We are also fortunate to include two fine illustrations of relatively new areas of behavior analysis. One is the application of behavioral technology to medical problems. The time is now past when medical and behavioral research are considered as separate "models." Cataldo, Russo, and Freeman effectively demonstrate the control of seizures through the manipulation of environmental events. Another new area relates to selfcontrol, the application of behavioral principles to one's own behavior. Self-control often is described as dealing with mediating internal events, and thus behaviorists have traditionally avoided using the concept to explain behavior. Holman and Baer not only point out the potential of selfcontrol procedures for increasing generalization of treatment effects but also apply the technology to children with learning problems. This paper demonstrates one of the most important features of good behavior analysis and of the within-subject research methodology it often employs. These researchers found the behavior of one child to be apparently unaffected by the contingencies set up in the research. Rather than dismissing this child's results as unexplained variability, they conducted further analysis to determine the variables influencing his behavior. Thus, instead of having one child who did not show the general effect, we have additional information about variables affecting generalization in this situation. Although these contributions represent some of the most important current behavioral research directed toward our population of children, they are by no means an exhaustive selection. Instead, they are intended to
314
Special Issue on Behavioral Research
serve as an invitation for the submission for publication in subsequent issues of other important behavioral studies, which limitation of space prevented us from including here.
Eric Schopler Editor
Editorial: Special Issue on Behavioral Research The past decade has brought a striking increase of research directed toward better understanding and treatment of autism and related disorders. This has resulted in new questions and issues, better treatment techniques, and advances in knowledge. However, the increase in research interest and productivity has also made it more difficult to differentiate new information of lasting significance from findings that are trivial or cannot be replicated. In order to offer our readers a clearer understanding of significance in the growing research volume, we are planning to publish a yearly special issue, devoted to a major area of concern and organized according to one of the models of productive research or theory. The guest editor for each special issue will invite contributions from the most distinguished researchers in that area in order to provide both historical perspective and studies considered most significant by researchers in the special area. It is therefore no accident that this first special issue is devoted to the behavioral perspective. Behaviorists have provided some of the most significant advances in the treatment of children with developmental disorders. Our guest editor, Laura Schreibman, has done a superb job in bringing t o g e t h e r the best behavioral research available, in order to illustrate the diversity of analyses and treatment approaches in this area. Although each paper represents an individual contribution, they are closely related in their careful and systematic approach to the study of developmentally disordered behavior. The issue begins with a historical perspective on the behavioral treatment of autism by Ivar Lovaas, the individual who is most often associated with the behavior modification of autistic children. He discusses the "behavioral m o d e l " versus the "disease m o d e l " from the embattled viewpoint of one who has been in the midst of conflict for many years. By reducing the field to only two models of study, his introductory comments give the appearance of oversimplified polemic. There are, after all, other research models such as epidemiology, cognitive development, psycholinguistics, and ethology, to name only a few. There are also complex issues of social interaction, special education, mainstreaming, community organization, and biomedical processes that are clarified by other than behavioral 311 0162-3257/79/1200-0311503.00/0 9 1979 Plenum Publishing Corporation
312
Special Issue on Behavioral Research
concepts and methods. Some of these will be topics of subsequent special issues. Unless some of our readers misunderstand Lovaas's introductory comments, they may be read as representing two kinds of behaviorism. The first part of his comments represents the evangelical enthusiast, impelled to ignore the system's limits, while the second part represents the behaviorist who feels accepted as a social scientist and who is open to questions and changes in theory as directed by rational inferences from empirical research data. Although it can be easily forgotten when presented with a special journal issue like this one, one must be cautious in using any single research model or treatment approach in the area of developmental disorders. The concentration on one model can lead to excesses such as the tendency to deny the usefulness of all other approaches to understanding and treatment. In the past, parents of autistic children were frequently misunderstood because of an uncritical emphasis on the effects of the child's early social environment. This one-sided emphasis was not confined to psychoanalytic theorists; in fact, it could also be found in some behaviorists' exclusive emphasis on parents' inappropriate reinforcement history. The concentration on one model may also ignore troublesome limitations. For instance, there are obvious limits to the single case study design. Even when it can demonstrate the effectiveness of a behavioral manipulation with one child, it does not necessarily clarify the limits of the techniques or the characteristics of the subject to whom it might not apply. Moreover, we must not forget that unrealistic expectations of cure and treatment effectiveness are promoted by zealots of any theoretical persuasion who are too eager for support from patients or from granting agencies. Such limits are implicitly recognized in the second part of Lovaas's introduction. He reviews the substantial contribution made by behaviorists to the advancement of knowledge, including operant techniques for teaching imitation and for reducing self-destructive and self-stimulatory behavior. This serves as an admirable introduction to the papers selected for this special issue. The broad range of papers presented here well illustrates that, contrary to the opinions of some, the behavioral approach is not single minded. The first two papers on the behavioral analysis of language are particularly important for the populations addressed by our journal, since severe communication disorders are so prevalent. The paper by Goetz, Schuler, and Sailor serves as a fine example of how behaviorists systematically analyze the different components of language training in order to refine and improve treatment procedures. Carr's paper represents a
Special Issue on Behavioral Research
313
thoughtful and objective review of the advantages and pitfalls of sign language as a means of teaching functional language in nonverbal children. While some still see behavior modification as the application of specific consequences ("reward and punishment"), the field is concerned with all aspects of learning. One area that is receiving increasingly needed attention is that of stimulus control--analysis of the effect of antecedent stimuli on behavior. The Etzel and LeBlanc study offers a sophisticated example of a systematic analysis of stimuli used in teaching discriminations to children who have difficulty learning. Koegel, Schreibman, Britten, and Laitinen present a study that continues the directed line of research on stimulus overselectivity in autism. The study is a hopeful one, showing how this serious deficit may be reduced. Foxx, Snyder, and Schroeder present data on an overcorrection procedure for two profoundly retarded adults in an institutional setting. The work demonstrates how effective the technique can be with a population and in a setting that are both very resistant to change. This is another in a series of important contributions by Dr. Foxx and his colleagues that are not only of theoretical importance but also of direct applied value. We are also fortunate to include two fine illustrations of relatively new areas of behavior analysis. One is the application of behavioral technology to medical problems. The time is now past when medical and behavioral research are considered as separate "models." Cataldo, Russo, and Freeman effectively demonstrate the control of seizures through the manipulation of environmental events. Another new area relates to selfcontrol, the application of behavioral principles to one's own behavior. Self-control often is described as dealing with mediating internal events, and thus behaviorists have traditionally avoided using the concept to explain behavior. Holman and Baer not only point out the potential of selfcontrol procedures for increasing generalization of treatment effects but also apply the technology to children with learning problems. This paper demonstrates one of the most important features of good behavior analysis and of the within-subject research methodology it often employs. These researchers found the behavior of one child to be apparently unaffected by the contingencies set up in the research. Rather than dismissing this child's results as unexplained variability, they conducted further analysis to determine the variables influencing his behavior. Thus, instead of having one child who did not show the general effect, we have additional information about variables affecting generalization in this situation. Although these contributions represent some of the most important current behavioral research directed toward our population of children, they are by no means an exhaustive selection. Instead, they are intended to
314
Special Issue on Behavioral Research
serve as an invitation for the submission for publication in subsequent issues of other important behavioral studies, which limitation of space prevented us from including here.
Eric Schopler Editor
