Blenkush Nathan, O'Neill Dawn A, O'Neill John
The Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, 250 Turnpike Street, Canton, MA 02021 USA.
Perspect Behav Sci. 2023 Jun 26;46(2):329-337. doi: 10.1007/s40614-023-00380-3. eCollection 2023 Jun.
Intractable self-injury, aggressive, and other destructive behaviors are real human conditions. Contingent electric skin shock (CESS) is a technology, based on behavior-analytic principles, used to ameliorate such behaviors. However, CESS has always been extraordinarily controversial. The Association for Behavior Analysis (ABAI), commissioned an independent Task Force to examine the issue. After a comprehensive review, the Task Force suggested the treatment should be available for use in select cases through a largely accurate report. Yet, ABAI adopted a position indicating CESS is never appropriate. On the issue of CESS, we are extremely concerned behavior analysis departed from the fundamental epistemology of positivism and is misleading nascent behavior analysts and consumers of behavioral technology. Destructive behaviors are extremely difficult to treat. In our commentary, we outline clarifications regarding aspects of the Task Force Report, proliferation of falsehoods by leaders in our field, and limitations to the standard of care in behavior analysis. We recommend using science to answer important questions instead of propagating false information at the expense of current and future clients with treatment refractory behaviors.
顽固性自我伤害、攻击性行为及其他破坏性行为是真实存在的人类状况。非条件性皮肤电刺激(CESS)是一项基于行为分析原理的技术,用于改善此类行为。然而,CESS一直极具争议性。行为分析协会(ABAI)委托一个独立特别工作组来审查这个问题。经过全面审查,特别工作组建议通过一份大致准确的报告,使该治疗方法在特定案例中可供使用。然而,ABAI采取了一种立场,表明CESS永远都不合适。在CESS这个问题上,我们极为担忧行为分析背离了实证主义的基本认识论,并且正在误导初出茅庐的行为分析师和行为技术的消费者。破坏性行为极难治疗。在我们的评论中,我们概述了关于特别工作组报告各方面的澄清内容、我们领域内领导者传播的虚假信息,以及行为分析中护理标准的局限性。我们建议用科学来回答重要问题,而不是以患有难治性治疗行为的当前及未来客户为代价传播虚假信息。