Ah, people from very serious Psychiatry departments in major universities, related major mental health departments, NHS Trusts. Not a group of fervent activists, I'm sure you'll agree.

So, what did they find?
Well, they looked at 246 people - those with learning disabilities and autistic people.
Positive Behaviour Support was done to them.
"The present analysis.. suggests that the intervention did not reduce challenging behaviour in ASD+ participants."
That's quite awkward.
So, summarising, this is a team of researchers from well respected Institutions, and they couldn't find evidence of Positive Behaviour Support working, for autistic people.

I think I'll just leave this here, and wave gently at those commissioning it.
Incidentally, the test used was the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist. Let's have a look at wider examples of what's measured in that:
Depressed.
Cries 'inappropriately'
Listless.
Seeks isolation.
Withdrawn.
Fixed face expression.
Watches others.
Doesn't like physical contact/
Sits in one position.
Inactive.
Shows few social reactions
Stimming
Too active
Disobedient
Doesn't do as they are told
Talks too much
Talks too loudly.

So, these are the kinds of things it didn't work on.
If we're alleging that PBS helps people have good lives, but this isn't measured in this paper....how does that fit with the list of things they're checking for?
PBS is evidence-based, yes? So how is it measuring 'good lives'?
I'm quite fond of the old Positive Support systems, as I often say. The ones similar to the Gentle Teaching approaches. Colleagues of mine use them, and call them 'PBS' in order to tick the right box on the CQC forms. But they're actually not based on behaviourism at all.
Now, if we want a system that works, I can recommend several that are fabulous.
You can follow @AnnMemmott.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: