A framework for neurodiversity-affirming interventions for autistic individuals.
Open accessAbstract
Despite being targets of intervention practice and research for over 60 years, autistic people have been left out of the conversation. Until recently, nearly no research or implementation work has sought the input of autistic people in regard to the design of interventions and, more importantly, how the goals for such interventions are prioritized and determined. This reframe has profound implications for autism-focused interventions and research, most of which have aimed to reduce or eliminate autism symptoms, with variable empirical support (Bottema-Beutel, 2023). These outcomes are practically and ethically incompatible with a neurodiversity perspective. Most prominently, applied behavior analysis (ABA), which was the first intervention approach widely applied to autistic people, has come under increasing scrutiny and criticism for failing to include autistic people in the design of intervention elements and consideration of goals; moreover, autistic people are increasingly identifying iatrogenic effects they have experienced when receiving ABA (Bottema-Beutel, 2023), with these concerns often being met with minimization rather than an endorsement of their validity and willingness to hear them out. Thus, there is a pressing need for a neurodiversity-affirming interventions (NAI) framework for autism. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Autistic perspectives have rarely been incorporated into both research and clinical practice.
“Complementary to these ethical concerns, it becomes apparent that autistic perspectives have rarely been incorporated into both research and clinical practice(Lerner et al., 2023).”
From Rethinking psychological interventions in autism: Toward a neurodiversity‐affirming approach. (2025) · cites this paper as Lerner et al., 2023
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 6 · Cited by 70
- Authors
- Lerner, M. D., Gurba, A. N., & Gassner, D. L.
- Affiliations
- Stony Brook University (US)
- Adelphi University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
- Published
- 2023-09
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 503-504
- ISSN
- 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2117
- PMC
- PMC10430771
- OpenAlex
- W4385798994
- Cited by
- 70
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 24 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 10.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH110585)
- Health Resources and Services Administration (T73MC42026)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
- Keywords
- autism spectrum disorder, autistic people, applied behavior analysis, iatrogenic disease, intervention framework
- MeSH terms
- Autistic Disorder, Humans, Social Marginalization
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review