10/05/2026
Am I "bashing" ABA?
No. "Bashing" is a dismissive term used to minimize the argument.
The criticism of ABA, including the reseach, methods, encroachment on other professions and billing practices is well-documented. The voices of autistic people speaking out against ABA are loud.
I recently posted this response to another ABA debate about the attempts of ABA practitioners to shift away from their history and foundational theory and be more neuroaffirming:
"The question is, CAN ABA be neuro-affirming? Many critics, including people with lived experience and those who have been trained in ABA (myself included) say NO. ABA is operant conditioning. The PEOPLE can certainly strive to be more neuroaffirming, but the THEORY is the problem. The theory was created in a lab on lab animals. When ABA practitioners become more neuroaffirming, focus on sensory processing and regulation, and work on ADLs, why would they not just refer to an Occupational Therapist? OTs are masters or doctoral level clinicians with advanced training in these areas, so why stay with minimally trained RBTs or BCBAs with no training in sensory processing? It's because ABA is paid for.
That's it.
The more ABA tries to evolve and do better, the more they abandon their theory and encroach on OT and SLP. But they still bill for ABA because of their credentials, not because they are providing ABA. The criticism is not of the people who work in ABA. The criticism is of the foundational theory, the history, the research and the methods still used today.
The solution to protect children is to remove the RBT billing codes so only BCBAs with training in autism are allowed to work with autistic children. Then, doctors need to stop automatically recommending ABA, instead recommending OT and SLP FIRST. If progress is stagnated, THEN a behavioral approach could be recommended. Also, the 20-40 hours a week needs to be eliminated. A 2025 RCT showed that both OT and ABA were effective in meeting goals identified by families. The intervention was 30 hours TOTAL, not 30 hours a week. Remove RBTs and remove the obnoxious 20-40 hours a week and the criticism will lessen because fewer kids will be hurt. But, if those recommendations are implemented, the industry fails because private equity loses its gravy train. ABA is about money, not kids, so its time to take away the credit card."
There are evidence-based alternatives to ABA. We talk about them all the time on this page. I understand why ABA practitioners feel that I am "bashing" them. They spent time and money on their training and it's their livelihood. Being defensive is a natural reaction. Their bias is clear. But, how many kids have to be hurt? How many autistic voices have to speak out? How much billing fraud has to occur? How much questionable research has to be published before we finally acknowledge that ABA is not the "gold standard" they claim to be. There is no "new ABA" like they claim there is, and no, operant conditioning cannot be neuro-affirming.
It's not "bashing". It criticism that the industry deserves and an uncomfortable yet crucial conversation that needs to happen.
Parents deserve true informed consent.
Picture: A cute quokka, native to Australia, to make this stand out on your feed.
