We, as behavior analysts, are on the verge of either dramatically improving behavioral treatment for children with autism or hopelessly tainting our research with ambiguous terms and petty distinctions.

In my experience, discussion of behavioral treatment for children with autism can be broken into three different time periods. From the 1960's through the 1980's, research was steadily compiled demonstrating the effectiveness of behavioral treatment for many children with autism, as well as the limitations of this treatment. During the 1990's, different approaches were branded either as "tried and true" methods of behavioral treatment (e.g., Lovaas, traditional ABA) or "cutting-edge" methods (e.g., Verbal Behavior, PRT). With the start of the new millennium, research has started to move beyond specific terms and more systematically focus on different aspects of behavioral treatment and the likelihood they will best help a particular child.

Unfortunately, the terminology used to describe procedures, methods, approaches, etc. in behavioral treatment has not always been defined precisely enough. If we are to truly research what works best for a particular child, it is important that we don't confuse the issue by using ambiguous terminology.

This is the first in a series of discussions on refining the behavioral terminology we use in research. My discussion on behavioral terminology may not be flawless, but I have enough background to get the conversation going and am more than willing to learn from other people's insights. So, here we go...