Understanding the Research and Criticism Against ABA Therapy

Q:
Are there research papers that criticize ABA therapy, and what should I know as a parent?
‍
A:
Yes. There is research that critiques ABA therapy, and as a Clinical Coordinator I believe parents deserve transparency about both the benefits and the criticisms.

I’ve read the papers, and I’ve worked with families who’ve had both positive and mixed experiences with ABA.

Some studies and testimonials argue that early ABA, particularly older models from the 1980s and 90s, were too rigid, compliance-based, and focused on making autistic children appear “normal” rather than supporting their individuality.

Papers by neurodivergent advocates raise concerns about long-term mental health outcomes and trauma when therapy ignores autonomy or uses excessive prompting or extinction.

One widely cited paper is by Michelle Dawson, an autistic researcher who questions whether outcome-based research in ABA properly reflects the lived experience of autistic individuals. Other critiques focus on lack of assent from the child, the use of overly clinical goals, or interventions that suppress natural behaviors without understanding their function.

That said, ABA today is not what it was 30 years ago. In our practice, we focus on assent-based, child-centered, flexible programs. We adapt based on the client’s cues, involve the family in every goal, and teach skills that increase independence and quality of life and not compliance for its own sake.

I believe the criticism matters. It keeps us accountable. And it pushes the field to grow. Our responsibility is to deliver ethical, compassionate therapy that respects the child and delivers real, measurable value to the family.
‍
More resources:
What is autism?
‍What is ABA?
How can ABA help?