Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Language shapes scientific interpretation, clinical decision-making, and public understanding of autism. Although much attention has focused on identity-first versus person-first terminology, little is known about how researchers describe behaviors targeted for reduction (e.g., aggression, self-injury). We examined how the terminology used to label such behaviors in autism intervention single-case research has changed over the past three decades, quantifying shifts across journals and years to evaluate the extent to which the field has moved away from consistent, standardized terminology.</p> Methods <p>A bibliometric prevalence analysis was conducted across six journals with a history of publishing single-case experimental design (SCED) research related to autism or problem behavior. All articles published in 1994, 2004, 2014, and 2024 were reviewed (<i>n</i> = 2326). Articles were included if they measured a behavior targeted for reduction using an SCED and used one of 12 predetermined behavior-related terms. Interrater agreement was 100%. Frequency data were analyzed descriptively and using Kruskal–Wallis tests.</p> Results <p>Across 189 included articles, terminology diversity increased by 22% from 1994 to 2024. Use of <i>problem behavior</i> declined sharply in 2024, while <i>challenging behavior</i> increased markedly. <i>Disruptive behavior</i> and <i>target behavior</i> remained stable. Significant differences were observed across both year (<i>H</i> = 38.07, <i>p</i> &lt; .001) and journal (<i>H</i> = 14.42, <i>p</i> = .0132).</p> Conclusion <p>Behavior-related terminology in autism research has become increasingly heterogeneous, with a notable shift away from the term <i>problem behavior</i>. These changes likely reflect evolving editorial practices and sociocultural influences rather than empirical evidence. Greater transparency, consistency, and stakeholder input are needed to ensure that language choices advance, rather than obscure, scientific and clinical communication.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

On Terms: Is There a Problem With “Problem Behavior”? A Bibliometric Prevalence Analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月19日

查看全文
  • Michael P. Kranak,
  • Kimberly Cantu-Davis,
  • Leslie C. Neely,
  • Meredith J. Stephens,
  • Megan A. Wessel

摘要

Purpose

Language shapes scientific interpretation, clinical decision-making, and public understanding of autism. Although much attention has focused on identity-first versus person-first terminology, little is known about how researchers describe behaviors targeted for reduction (e.g., aggression, self-injury). We examined how the terminology used to label such behaviors in autism intervention single-case research has changed over the past three decades, quantifying shifts across journals and years to evaluate the extent to which the field has moved away from consistent, standardized terminology.

Methods

A bibliometric prevalence analysis was conducted across six journals with a history of publishing single-case experimental design (SCED) research related to autism or problem behavior. All articles published in 1994, 2004, 2014, and 2024 were reviewed (n = 2326). Articles were included if they measured a behavior targeted for reduction using an SCED and used one of 12 predetermined behavior-related terms. Interrater agreement was 100%. Frequency data were analyzed descriptively and using Kruskal–Wallis tests.

Results

Across 189 included articles, terminology diversity increased by 22% from 1994 to 2024. Use of problem behavior declined sharply in 2024, while challenging behavior increased markedly. Disruptive behavior and target behavior remained stable. Significant differences were observed across both year (H = 38.07, p < .001) and journal (H = 14.42, p = .0132).

Conclusion

Behavior-related terminology in autism research has become increasingly heterogeneous, with a notable shift away from the term problem behavior. These changes likely reflect evolving editorial practices and sociocultural influences rather than empirical evidence. Greater transparency, consistency, and stakeholder input are needed to ensure that language choices advance, rather than obscure, scientific and clinical communication.