Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Commentary on Drash and Tudor: An Analysis of Autism as a Contingency-Shaped Disorder of Verbal Behavior

  • Published:
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A critique is presented of the etiological model for autism as presented by Drash and Tudor. The model is rejected based upon conceptual and methodological grounds. The major points raised concern overgeneralization of research findings, limitations of single subject methodology to answer population based questions, current neurobiological research, and the danger of uni-dimensional models. Specific examples of cases that do not fit Drash and Tudor model are presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Gillberg, C. (2000). The Biology of the Autistic Syndromes (3rd ed.) Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • New York State Department of Health Clinical Practice Guideline: The Guideline Technical Report. Autism/Pervasive Developmental Disorders, Assessment, andIntervention for Young Children (Age 0-3 Years). Publication No. 4217. New York State Department of Health, 1999.

  • Rodier, P. M. (2000, February). The Early Origins of Autism, Scientific American, 282 (2), 56–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Romanczyk, R. G., Arnstein, L., Soorya, L., & Gillis, J. (2002). The Myriad of Controversial Treatments for Autism: ACritical Evaluation of Efficacy. In Lilienfeld, Lohr, and Lynn (Eds.), Science andPseu-doscience in Contemporary Clinical Psychology. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolf, S. H. (1991) AHCPR Interim Manual for Clinical Practice Guideline Development. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (AHCPR Publication No. 91-0018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolf, S. H. (1994). An organized analytic framework for practice guideline development: Using the analytic logic as a guide for reviewing evidence, developing recommendations, and explaining the rationale. In McCormick, K. A., Moore, S. R., & Siegel, R. A. (Eds.), Clinical Practice Guideline Development: Methodology Perspectives. Rockville, M.D: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (AHCPR Publication No. 95-0009).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Child Development, State University of New York at Binghamton, Binghamton, NY, 13902-6000, USA

    Raymond G. Romanczyk Ph.D., BCBA & Jennifer M. Gillis M.A., BCBA

Authors
  1. Raymond G. Romanczyk Ph.D., BCBA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer M. Gillis M.A., BCBA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raymond G. Romanczyk Ph.D., BCBA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Romanczyk, R.G., Gillis, J.M. Commentary on Drash and Tudor: An Analysis of Autism as a Contingency-Shaped Disorder of Verbal Behavior. Analysis Verbal Behav 20, 45–47 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392992

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392992

Search

Navigation