CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 137Pharmaceutical industry and healthcareAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchAcademic integrity and plagiarism

Research Review: Conflicts of Interest (COIs) in autism early intervention research – a meta‐analysis of COI influences on intervention effects

Open access
Bottema‐Beutel, Kristen, Crowley, Shannon, Sandbank, Micheal, Woynaroski, Tiffany G.·2021·Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
DOI 10.1111/jcpp.13249PMC PMC7606324
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: The presence, types, disclosure rates, and effects of conflicts of interest (COIs) on autism early intervention research have not previously been studied. The purpose of this study was to examine these issues. Methods: This study is a secondary analysis of a comprehensive meta‐analysis of all group‐design, nonpharmacological early intervention autism research conducted between 1970 and 2018. We coded reports for the presence/absence of COI statements, the types of COIs that were disclosed, and for 8 types of COIs, including (a) the author developed the intervention, (b) the author is affiliated with a clinical provider, (c) the author is employed by a clinical provider, (d) the author is affiliated with an institution that trains others to use the intervention, (e) the author receives payment or royalties related to the intervention, (f) the study was funded by an intervention provider, (g) the study used a commercially available measure developed by the author, and (h) proceeds of the intervention fund the author’s research. Frequencies and proportions were calculated to determine prevalence of COIs and COI disclosures. Meta‐analysis was used to estimate summary effects by COI type and to determine if they were larger than for reports with no coded COIs. Results: Seventy percent of reports were coded for ≥ 1 COI, but only ~ 6% of reports contained COI statements fully accounting for all coded COIs. Metaregressions did not detect significant influences of any COI type on summary effects; however, point estimates for each COI type were larger than for reports with no coded COIs. Conclusions: Conflicts of interest are prevalent but under‐reported in autism early intervention research. Improved reporting practices are necessary for researcher transparency and would enable more robust examination of the effects of COIs on research outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcpp.13249

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Researchers have drawn attention to the abundance of conflicts of interest in ABA research, which are seldom fully disclosed.

    “Researchers have also drawn attention to the abundance of conflicts of interest in ABA research, which are seldom fully disclosed (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021b).”

    From Neurodiversity and Autism Intervention: Reconciling Perspectives Through a Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Intervention Framework (2022) · cites this paper as Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021b

    The Results (page unavailable) report COIs in 70% of the autism early-intervention reports studied, with only 5.7% of reports with coded COIs fully disclosing them. The Discussion says under-reporting appears across intervention types, including behavioral interventions, but the study does not establish the same prevalence or disclosure pattern for ABA research as a whole. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The circumscribed conflict of interest reporting has been commonplace in ABA research.

    “the circumscribed conflict of interest reporting that has been commonplace in ABA research (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021b)”

    From Neurodiversity and Autism Intervention: Reconciling Perspectives Through a Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Intervention Framework (2022) · cites this paper as Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021b

    The Discussion section ('Prevalence of COIs and reporting practices'; page not supplied) says COI reporting in autism early intervention research was usually restricted to direct financial transactions and often omitted other conflicts. The Results show that the study included behavioral interventions, but the cited passages do not establish that this reporting pattern was commonplace specifically in ABA research. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, & Rothstein HR (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex, UK: Wiley.
  2. Cherla DV, Viso CP, Holihan JL, Bernardi K, Moses ML, Mueck KM, … & Adams SD (2019). The effect of financial conflict of interest, disclosure status, and relevance on medical research from the United States. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 34(3), 429– 434. 30604124 PMC6420588
  3. Chivers T (2019). Does psychology have a conflict of interest problem? Nature, 571, 20– 23. 31267062
  4. Delgado AF, & Delgado AF (2017). The association of funding source on effect size in randomized controlled trials: 2013–2015 - a cross-sectional survey and meta-analysis. Trials, 18, (125). PMC5351064 28292317
  5. Eisner M (2009). No effect in independent prevention trials: Can we reject the cynical view? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5, 163– 183.
  6. Eisner M, Humphreys DK, Wilson P, Gardner F (2015). Disclosure of financial conflicts of interests in interventions to improve child psychosocial health: A cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE, 10(11), e0142803 10.1371/journal.pone.0142803 26606667 PMC4659631 · DOI
  7. Gandhi AG, Murphy-Graham E, Petrosino A, Chrismer SS, & Weiss CH (2007). The devil is in the details: examining the evidence for “proven” school-based drug abuse prevention programs. Evaluation Review, 31(1), 43– 74. 17259575
  8. Gorman DM (2003). Alcohol & drug abuse: the best of practices, the worst of practices: the making of science-based primary prevention programs. Psychiatric Services, 54(8), 1087– 1089. 12883133
  9. Gorman DM (2005). Drug and violence prevention: rediscovering the critical rational dimension of evaluation research. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(1), 39– 62.
  10. Gorman DM (2018). Can we trust positive findings of intervention research? The role of conflict of interest. Prevention Science, 19(3), 295– 305. 27106694
  11. Gorman DM, & Conde E (2007). Conflict of interest in the evaluation and dissemination of “model” school-based drug and violence prevention programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30, 422– 429. 17945143 PMC2955513
  12. Goozner M, Caplan A, Moreno J, Kramer BS, Babor TF, & Husser WC (2009). A common standard for conflict of interest disclosure in addiction journals. Addiction, 104(11), 1779– 1784. 19832777
  13. Hedges LV, Tipton E, & Johnson MC (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta‐regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 39– 65. 26056092
  14. Institute of Medicine. (2002). Integrity in scientific research: Creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 24967480
  15. Ioannides JPA, Munafo JR, Fusar-Poli P, Nosek BA, & David SP (2014). Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: Detection prevalence, and prevention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 235– 241. 24656991 PMC4078993
  16. Nosek BA, Spies JR, & Motyl M (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615– 631. 26168121 PMC10540222
  17. Okike K, Kocher MS, Wei EX, Mehlman CT, & Bhandari M (2009). Accuracy of conflict-of-interest disclosures reported by physicians. New England Journal of Medicine, 361(15), 1466– 1474. 19812403
  18. Petrosino A, & Soydan H (2005). The impact of program developers as evaluators on criminal recidivism: results from meta-analyses of experimental and quasi-experimental research. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(4), 435– 450
  19. Presnall N, Wester-Stratton CH, Constantino JN (2014). Parent training: Equivalent improvement in externalizing behavior for children with and without familial risk. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 53(8), 879– 887. 25062595 PMC4492282
  20. Relman AS (1984). Dealing with conflicts of interest. New England Journal of Medicine, 310, 1182– 1183. 6709012
  21. Romain PL (2015). Conflicts of interest in research: Looking out for number one means keeping the primary interest front and center. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, 8, 122– 127. 25851417 PMC4596167
  22. Shavelson RJ, & Webb NM (1991). Measurement methods for the social sciences series, Vol. 1. Generalizability theory: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
  23. Tellegen CL, & Sanders MR (2014). A randomized controlled trial evaluating a brief parenting program with children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(6), 1193– 1200. 24979315
  24. Wallace B, Small K, Brodley CE, Lau J, & Trikalinos TA (2012). Deploying an interactive machine learning system in an evidence-based practice center: abstrackr. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium, 819– 824.
  25. Wells EM (2017). Evidence regarding the impact of conflicts of interest on environmental and occupational health research. Current Environmental Health Reports, 4(2), 109– 118. 28397095

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bottema‐Beutel, K., Crowley, S., Sandbank, M., & Woynaroski, T. G.
Affiliations
  • Boston College (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Bottema‐Beutel, Kristen
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-04-30
Volume
62
Issue
1
Pages
5-15
ISSN
  • 0021-9630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7610
DOI
10.1111/jcpp.13249
PMC
PMC7606324
OpenAlex
W3021450028
Cited by
137
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 81 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 2
FWCI
1.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U54HD083211)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
Keywords
conflicts of interest, autism spectrum disorder, early intervention, conflict of interest disclosure, research transparency, non-pharmacological treatment, commercialization of research, funding sources, intervention effects
MeSH terms
Autistic Disorder, Humans, Conflict of Interest, Early Intervention, Educational, Disclosure

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