logo

Early Intensive Behavioural Intervention (UCLA YAP Model) and Autism Ranking: Strong positive evidence

Risks and Safety

Hazards

Some critics claim that Early Intensive Behavioural Intervention does not enable children to generalise the skills they have learnt, that is, they can only do exactly what they have been taught to do, nothing else.

Others claim that the method can lead children to become very prompt- or cue-dependent whereby they can perform tasks when prompted but do not spontaneously use these skills in everyday interactions.

Some critics also claim that extensive use and over reliance on intensive intervention may be problematic because it is very time consuming and costly, leaving little time or money for other activities – additionally studies have shown that results reported under laboratory conditions frequently fail to be replicated in other (real life) settings.

There is also the moral debate about subjecting a child to such intensive therapy - some people argue that as adults we are only supposed to work 35 hours per week and yet we could be asking children with autism to work 40+ hours with little free or unstructured time.

Some autistic people object to any interventions which are based on the principle of applied behaviour analysis. For example, Milton objects to the “goal of the practice and its ideology; to its moribund [dying] theory; to the lack of good evidence in its support and a history of its advocates not answering criticisms; and to a disregard for reports of harm arising from its use”. (Source: personal correspondence with Research Autism, June 2013)

Contraindications

There are no known contraindications (something which makes a particular treatment or procedure potentially inadvisable) for the UCLA YAP Model of EIBI.

Updated
16 Jun 2022
Last Review
01 Sep 2016
Next Review
01 Jan 2023