Evidence-Based Practice, Ableism, and Hidden Biases in Peer-Reviewed Literature

We're taught that evidence-based practice is the gold standard. But here's a question worth sitting with: when an intervention is deemed "effective," who is it actually effective for? Is it effective for the neurodivergent individual based on their hopes, dreams, and input? Or is it deemed effective by non-disabled researchers based on what they assume to be important?

This resource takes a hard look at how ableism influences all three components of evidence-based practice: the research evidence, clinical experience, and client circumstances and values. It examines how biases show up in ways we've been trained not to notice, and offers concrete tools for reading research more critically.

Inside this resource, you'll find:

• How the medical model of disability shapes most published research, leading to outcome measures that prioritize neurotypical ways of living
• Why the exclusion of neurodivergent voices from neurodivergent research creates ableist biases baked into study design from the start
• How practitioner perceptions of client values get filtered through stigma, bias, and assumptions about "normalcy"
• Real examples of ableism in clinical reasoning, like viewing self-stimulatory behaviors as problematic rather than recognizing them as essential self-regulation strategies
• The five-step cycle showing how mainstream EBP approaches perpetuate systemic inequity and occupational injustice
• Specific OT articles and position papers that illustrate these issues, alongside examples of community-based participatory research that centers lived experience
• Recommendations for incorporating lived-experience informed practice and community-defined evidence as supplements to traditional EBP
• A practical checklist for examining ableism in peer-reviewed research articles, with questions to ask about authorship, methodology, language, and framing

This resource includes academic references throughout for deeper exploration of each concept.

Perfect for occupational therapists, researchers, educators, and students ready to think critically about the literature they've been taught to trust and build a more ethical foundation for their practice.