treatment is intensive and carried out by trained therapists". However, the review committee also concluded that "there is a great need for more knowledge about which interventions are most effective". A 2009 paper included a descriptive analysis, an effect size analysis, and a meta-analysis of 13 reports published from 1987 to 2007 of early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI, a form of ABA-based treatment with origins in the Lovaas technique) for autism. It determined that EIBI's effect sizes were "generally positive" for IQ, adaptive behavior, expressive language, and receptive language. The paper did note limitations of its findings including the lack of published comparisons between EIBI and other "empirically validated treatment programs". In a 2009 systematic review of 11 studies published from 1987 to 2007, the researchers wrote "there is strong evidence that EIBI is effective for some, but not all, children with autism spectrum disorders, and there is wide variability in response to treatment". Furthermore, any improvements are likely to be greatest in the first year of intervention. A 2009 meta-analysis of nine studies published from 1987 to 2007 concluded that EIBI has a "large" effect on full-scale intelligence and a "moderate" effect on adaptive behavior in autistic children. A 2009 systematic review and meta-analysis by Spreckley and Boyd of four small-n 2000–2007 studies (involving a total of 76 children) came to different conclusions than the aforementioned reviews. Spreckley and Boyd reported that applied behavior intervention (ABI), another name for EIBI, did not significantly improve outcomes compared with standard care of preschool children with ASD in the areas of cognitive outcome, expressive language, receptive language, and adaptive behavior. In a letter to the editor, however, authors of the four studies meta-analyzed claimed that Spreckley and Boyd had misinterpreted one study comparing two forms of ABI with each other as a comparison of ABI with standard care, which erroneously decreased the observed efficacy of ABI. Furthermore, the four studies' authors raised the possibility that Spreckley and Boyd had excluded some other studies unnecessarily, and that including such studies could have led to a more favorable evaluation of ABI. Spreckley, Boyd, and the four studies' authors did agree that large multi-site randomized trials are needed to improve the understanding of ABA's efficacy in autism. Criticism Researchers and advocates have critiqued the leniency of the ABA ethical code, discussing how it does not restrict or clarify the "appropriate use of aversives", does not