Talk:Self-Injurious Behavior Inhibiting System

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Disability Self-Injurious Behavior Inhibiting System is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 September 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

Injurious is my new favorite word. :3

Hey everyone, I would like to start editing this page to provide a more comprehensive overview of SIBIS. TheAtomicBen and I would be editing this page as part of the APS Wikipedia Initiative. We have some material written up if anyone is interested. SIBISEditor (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have been discussing the use of this primary source "Linsched, T; Iwata, Brian A; Ricketts, R; Williams, Don; Griffin, James (1990). "Clinical evaluation of the self-injurious behavior inhibiting system (SIBIS)". Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 23 (1): 53–78."

People's thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There currently are not a lot of sources in the article. Are primary sources necessary in this case? Is there a WP:MEDDATE exception? Flyer22 (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the title of this article is supposed to use lowercase, per WP:Article titles. Flyer22 (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

use textbooks [1]?...(I think WP MEDDATE might be an issue with the article[2] )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an old primary source, probably usable for non-controversial statements that don't state or imply things about the effectiveness of the device. Alexbrn (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the Specifications section makes claims of efficacy: "Researchers can attribute this success ..." as if it were in Wikipedia's voice. I have concerns with the two references used in that section: one is the 1990 "Clinical evaluation" that examines just five cases and uses anecdotal follow-up data to reach its conclusions; and the other is the 2004 "Contingent electric shock" research article that looks at just one case. That's simply far too weak a set of sources to base any claim of effectiveness, and without stronger sourcing that claim needs to be exorcised from the article. I'll take a scalpel to it in a moment. --RexxS (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: see if that's any better. If the claims of medical effectiveness are no longer a concern, then the primary sources would seem to be usable to talk about the device's design, size, intended purpose, etc. --RexxS (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzie10aaaa, with regard to WP:MEDDATE, I was talking about the part of it that states, "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas with little progress or where few reviews are published." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add evidence for SIBIS from a time-series replication design (also known as a single-case research design or a single-subject experimental design) of top quality according to the authors that determined the content on the levels of evidence page^[1], among other experts on methodological designs^[2]. The experimenters included 5 participants with intellectual disabilities that engaged in head-targeted self-injurious behavior - and I need to be note that this is not a population-behavior combination that is common to the point where you can run a meaningful randomized clinical trial or group design. It would not have been feasible, nor ethical, because these participants had already gone through many other treatments without success and SIBIS was the treatment of "last resort". They had a ran 41, 84, 47, 460, and 115 session with each respective participant, and demonstrated a functional relation between using SIBIS and levels of head-directed self-injury 25 times (9, 7, 3, 3, and 3 demonstrations of functional control for each respective participant). ^[3]

The article can be accessed here. [3]. It is mentioned in a few legal cases here [4], and it is mentioned in a textbook here [5].

I see no reason to cite the textbook when we could just, in two or three sentences, summarize the study. The Linsched et al. (1990) study should be on this page, as is it pertinent information, and we should be spreading information on Wikipedia, not hiding it. Wolololol (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Wolololol[reply]

You can't use a single report on five people from 1990 to baldly claim that the SIBIS device is beneficial. You're going to need to find a good quality source that reviews the field and independently assesses the strength of such claims before you can use language like "demonstrate the efficacy of the SIBIS". I'm sorry, but it just isn't a good idea to take the authors' word on that the work is "top quality" - we really need a review where other independent authors make that sort of determination for us. If this device is actually effective, it will have been discussed in an independent review sometime in the last 25 years since the primary study was done. WP:MEDRS is a good guide to what sort of sources are good for making claims of medical effectiveness. --RexxS (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It actually won't be, because there is an agenda against using devices that deliver contingent electric shock, like SIBIS, from being approved by IRBs in medical research. You also seem to be missing that those 5 cases are very hard to come by, they (a) had developmental disabilities, (b) had head-directed self-injurious behavior, and (c) had been exposed to a ton of other evidence-based practices to reduce it, which will succeed in most other cases, but did not work for these participants. The authors demonstrated a functional relation between SIBIS and levels of SIB 25 times in those participants. This is considered extremely high-quality research. See citations 1 and 2 from my post above. This wasn't a case study, this wasn't a pre-post design, this wasn't an A-B design. There was a ton of experimental control. But we can have it your way, I'll cite from a textbook written in 2009. Wolololol (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Wolololol[reply]

Absolute illiteracy. You think a single twenty-five year old case study on five subjects, which has no corroboration whatsoever, is "considered extremely high-quality research". It might be on the planet where you're living, but not here on Earth. That is clearly a case report; as I've already pointed out to you, it begins with the words "Five cases involving the treatment of longstanding, severe, and previously unmanageable self-injurious behavior are presented." You're right about one thing though: there are virtually no studies examining this device and no third-party analysis of its effectiveness. So you want to ignore our agreed standards of evidence for a treatment that has no independent evidence of its efficacy because there's no independent evidence of its efficacy. Have you any idea how ludicrous that is? --RexxS (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further: given the edits that have taken place today, I'll suggest a compromise. Perhaps we can mention the Salvey 2004 case report as an example of the small amount of research available. If we don't endorse any claims of efficacy in Wikipedia's voice, I think we may be able to respect the spirit of MEDRS, while allaying Wolololol's concerns to have something in the article that touches on the possibility of effectiveness. As long as we make clear the numbers involved and the primary nature of the studies, can we leave the interested reader to investigate the sources themselves and reach their own conclusions? If anyone feels that my efforts are not acceptable, please feel free to revert me, in whole or in part. I'm not in any way attached to my wording. --RexxS (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• a relevant source. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]